Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Kite's Nest Farm, Broadway

Mr. Peter Luff: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) for his understanding in allowing me to present this petition.
I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 523 customers of Kite's Nest farm, Broadway, an outstanding organic beef producer. They are concerned that the provisions of the over-30-months scheme should not apply to that farm because of the extra costs that it imposes on taxpayers and the fact that it denies them access to the farm's excellent organic beefburgers. The petition declares:
the customers of the farm support it for its longstanding "closed" herd status and strict adherence to organic farming principles and that we have total confidence in the meat from Kite's Nest because we know that all the cattle (including all the breeding cows) were born and raised on the farm.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Minister of Agriculture to amend the Beef Assurance Scheme to grant an extension from the slaughter of cull cows to Kite's Nest Farm to allow all cattle from the farm to continue to be used for human consumption.
And the petitioners remain
etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Rural Development

Mr. Tim Boswell: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of approximately 250 residents of the Daventry constituency, expressing their concern about the decision to sanction plans for new development throughout the countryside.
The petition states:
The Petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that more homes are built in city areas, instead of the countryside or Green Belt, to breathe new life into our cities and to protect valuable countryside for future generations.
And the Petitioners remain faithfully yours.

To lie upon the Table.

Wild Mammals (Hunting)

Mr. Bob Russell: I am pleased to present a petition signed by 3,361 residents of Colchester and district, and further afield.
The petition declares:
the hunting of wild mammals with dogs is cruel and unnecessary, and has no place in modern Britain.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons approve legislation to ban hunting with dogs as soon as possible in the lifetime of this Parliament.
And the Petitioners remain
etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Ambulance Service (Haverhill)

Mr. Richard Spring: I have the honour to present a petition signed by 5,508 residents of Haverhill in my constituency.
The petition declares:
at present the town's ambulances are not manned after 5pm from Sunday to Thursday. The only 24-hour cover is on Friday and Saturday night. For a town of this size we feel this is not adequate to have to rely on ambulances having to be dispatched in an emergency from Cambridge, with all the delays that this involves. This extra time could mean the difference between life and death.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ask the Secretary of State for Health to reconsider 24-hour emergency ambulance service provision in the town of Haverhill, Suffolk.
And the Petitioners remain
etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New clause 2

POWER TO AMEND

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend any of the provisions of sections 1 and 8 to 13 so as to reduce the activities prohibited by section 1 or the powers and penalties in respect of any offence.

(2) An order under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Luff.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question proposed [6 March], That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Madam Speaker: I remind the House that we are considering new clause 2 and that this is a resumed debate. With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 20—Power to amend section 1—
(1) The Secretary of State may, by Order made by Statutory Instrument, amend any of the provisions of section 1 so as to change the activities prohibited by section 1.
(2) An Order made under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.
Amendment No. 53, in clause 7, page 2, line 31, leave out 'remove,'.
Amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 31, leave out ',amend'.
Mr. Edward Garnier had the Floor—

Mr. Ivor Caplin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was looking at the list of selected amendments, and wondered whether you could explain to me, as a new Member, the procedure that led to new clause 35, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), not being selected for debate today.

Madam Speaker: I appreciate that, as a new Member, the hon. Gentleman may not understand that the Speaker does not give reasons for non-selection or selection. The Standing Order gives the Speaker complete discretion over the selection of amendments. However, following the tabling of amendments, including new clause 35, on Wednesday evening, I am prepared to tell the House the general principles that I take into account in coming to a decision.
The power of selection exists to prevent repetition and to secure reasonable opportunities for the expression of all varieties of opinion in an orderly manner. Exercising the power in this instance was something to which I have given much anxious thought over the past 24 hours. Many hon. Members would have been disappointed whatever decision I reached on the selection of new clause 35, but I have tried to act in the best interests of this debate, and, of course, in the very best interests of the House of Commons.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I dare say, Madam Speaker, that you were not the only person to

have given anxious thought to new clause 35 over the past 24 hours. I see that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) is smiling, at least.
We can resume where we left off last Friday. In my submission, new clause 2 is preferable to new clause 20, because it permits the Secretary of State to amend clause 1 and clauses 8 to 13 to reduce the prohibited activities and the powers and penalties in the Bill. That is to be contrasted with new clause 20, my new clause, which is limited only to clause 1, but allows the Secretary of State to change—that is to say, increase or decrease—the powers, penalties and exceptions.
Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), suggest that we should take out the words "remove" and "amend" from clause 7. I freely confess that my right hon. and learned Friend's amendments and new clause 2 are better than my new clause 20. The amendments refer to a power proposed by the Bill for the Secretary of State to make new criminal laws by statutory instrument or secondary legislation. That is a highly undesirable concept, albeit fully in line with the Labour party's opinion of Parliament as an inconvenience and a barrier to proper debate on matters of public interest.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I support my hon. and learned Friend's view that new clause 2 is superior to new clause 20. If the Bill becomes law, it will be important for this House to amend clauses 8 to 13 which are clearly drafted in a way that would make criminals out of decent, law-abiding people living in the countryside. The clauses are ham-fisted and heavy-handed, and will require further scrutiny—and urgent review and amendment—if the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is right. One of the evils of the Bill is to allow for the extension of the criminal law by secondary legislation. We should maintain a position to cover that, because, in our view, the Bill is wholly defective, and we should reserve to the Secretary of State the powers to correct that matter. As a matter of principle, I am against the extension of criminal law by means of secondary legislation.
I briefly referred to the way in which Government Back Benchers consider the role of Parliament. I am reminded of the example of the new Labour Member of Parliament who considered that debates in this Chamber were an affront to democracy—not because he had thought about it, but because the Labour party won such a majority at the general election on 1 May last year that further debate on any matter which appeared in the manifesto was wholly unnecessary. I find that somewhat distressing, if not extraordinary.
The importance of the questions raised by this group of amendments goes far beyond the dangerous and constitutionally troubling area of allowing a Minister to make criminal law by secondary legislation. In my view, it touches upon the human rights of all those we are elected to protect and defend. The Labour party promised in its election manifesto—in a rather glib slogan—to "bring human rights home". It was glib because it was misleading and intellectually dishonest. It was misleading, because it implied that human rights were abused or non-existent in this country hitherto. It was intellectually dishonest, because it suggested that the Labour Government would be morally superior to the Tory one.
The Human Rights Bill has been introduced, and we await the Committee, which I trust will be on the Floor of the House. The Government claim to be serious about wanting to improve what they claim to be defects in our country's laws by implementing that Bill and by incorporating the European convention on human rights. If they are serious about that—I believe the Home Secretary is personally sincere in his analysis of the problem as he sees it and the solution he proposes—the Government must not allow even private Members' Bills to interfere with the human rights of our constituents. In addition, our constituents cannot be given the impression that the Government are giving only lip service to the wording and spirit of the convention.
This group of new clauses and amendments goes some way to assisting the Government, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), will thank me for that. If this Bill is passed before the Human Rights Bill is enacted, it will create not only direct victims of its provisions, but indirect victims, who, although not directly prejudiced by the provisions, could show that there existed such a special and personal link between them and the direct victims that they had suffered damage, or had a valid personal interest in securing the cessation of the violation. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman. Could we have less conversation in the House? A debate is taking place.

Mr. Garnier: It is rather sad that the supporters of the Bill, who have now attempted to introduce a third version of the Bill, are not prepared to listen to the points made in opposition to them. They may disagree with us—and we obviously disagree with them—but they might do the public at large, whom they intend to criminalise, the courtesy of listening to the points being made.

Mr. James Gray: They should pin back their lugholes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is an enthusiastic Member of Parliament.
A victim of a violation of his human rights need not show total loss of his rights or that he has been wholly deprived of the value of his possessions. For example, a clothing shop in my constituency sells a good deal of clothing to those who hunt. Clearly, not all the things for sale in the shop are to do with riding. None the less, a substantial proportion of the throughput of the sales isdirectly connected with riding. I submit that that shop could show that it was an indirect victim of the legislation. That is why the statutory instrument provision must be drafted far more widely than the Bill proposes.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is not my hon. and learned Friend's point reinforced by the fact that the Bill does not and cannot provide for compensation to those victims?

Mr. Garnier: That is exactly right, and it reinforces the argument that the Bill is wholly inimical to the civil

rights of a vast minority of our citizens. I was elected to represent not the majority of voters in my constituency, but all of them. There are many points on which I disagree with my constituents. None the less, it is my job and my duty to represent their interests. If it happens to be a minority interest, I must do so all the more vigorously.
Assuming that the Human Rights Bill becomes law, would the Minister be prepared to sign a statement of compatibility under clause 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Bill in respect of this Bill? I have a copy of the Human Rights Bill here, if the Minister wants to see it and I can have it passed across to him. I hope that he would not do so, because the public policy behind the convention is informed by two cardinal principles: first, an abhorrence of discrimination; secondly, a desire for proportionality.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on how the clause of the Human Rights Bill to which he referred would cross-reference to the Rio declaration signed by the previous Government, which calls on Governments throughout the world to respect the traditional pastimes of communities? How does that tie in with the point that he is making?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) would be ill advised to pursue that line of argument, and I must appeal to him to keep well within the strict confines of the new clause.

Mr. Garnier: You must have X-ray eyes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you anticipated the very remark that I was about to make. I will not deal with that point now, but my right hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will be able to advise my hon. Friend on the detail of that point. I am grateful to him for raising it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: But not in the context of this debate.

Mr. Garnier: You and I are ad idem, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I want to make a little progress if I may, but it is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) should have raised the matter for further consideration in due course.
The Bill as drafted, and unamended by the new clauses and amendments to which I am speaking, unarguably interferes with the property rights of thousands of British citizens. The question that the Government have to answer—they are the people who will have to answer for the hon. Member for Worcester if the matter is taken to court in Europe or our domestic courts—is whether interference by means of this legislation is justified in the public interest—an interest that must have been clearly and properly identified—and whether that interference is proportionate to the public interest so identified.
What justifies the banning of one method of fox control when others that are arguably far more cruel and likely to cause suffering are not banned? What is the public interest that justifies that discriminatory approach? Does it not have more to do with prejudice and ignorant perception about people who hunt with hounds, rather than with the concept and activity of hunting with hounds itself?
Therefore, could the Government—the hon. Member for Worcester cannot possibly do this—set out the objective criteria that are to be universally applied and say why they do not apply to other sports, such as shooting or fishing? I said that the hon. Member for Worcester could not possibly do it, because he is a match angler—a sport in which he competes with other human beings to play with a fish with a hook in its mouth. If the Government can claim any justification for the discrimination that the Bill reveals, how can they say that it is proportionate to the public interest that supporters of the Bill would have to argue for?
With Government Bills, there used to be a custom, which is now more honoured in the breach than the observance, that the public interest was clearly identified in a pre-legislative process of Green Papers and White Papers. That does not happen with private Members' Bills. It certainly did not happen with this Bill. Had new clause 35 been included in our discussion this morning, it would in effect have allowed for the third draft of the Bill, which was put on the amendment paper at the dead of night, giving us 24 hours' notice of this discussion. With this Bill, the system that would have allowed for that pre-legislative discussion has been absent—undeniably so, in the light of last Wednesday night—

Mr. Streeter: My hon. and learned Friend appears to be approaching the end of his remarks, and because I value his interpretation of the constitutional workings of this nation, before he sits down will he tell us whether he thinks that new clause 2 is sufficiently fast track to achieve future amendments to the Bill once it is enacted? The crisis, conflict and difficulties that the Bill would cause in the countryside if it became law would require urgent amendments, so is he satisfied that the procedure for coming back to the House under the new clause is sufficiently fast track to amend an unnecessary law?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough realises that, if he answered that question, he might be in danger of coming back within the terms of the discussion that we should be having. His previous remarks have been going wide of the purpose of the new clause.

Mr. Garnier: I will not deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). The only track I want this Bill to go down is into the sidings.
At present, the European Court of Human Rights—and our judges, following enactment of the Human Rights Bill—will readily point out the failure to identify adequately, if at all, and resolve the vital questions of public interest, proportionality and discrimination. The Minister cannot hide behind the Government's position of neutrality in the face of those criticisms, for states should not pass legislation in these circumstances.
New clauses 20 and 2 and amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are not the complete answer by any means, but they go some way to meeting the legitimate demands of a substantial proportion of our citizens who see their rights being recklessly, wantonly and unfairly put at risk by the Bill. I therefore urge my hon. Friends and Labour

Members who might have been listening carefully to consider my arguments, and support our new clauses and amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) wondered whether a ban would breach human rights, and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) raised that subject last week.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: My hon. Friend has referred to something that was said last week, on which I think he wanted to put the record straight. I would also like to take the opportunity to do so. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said that fox hounds went round Lake Vyrnwy on the instruction of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to help wildlife by clearing foxes. The RSPB never asked for fox hounds to look after wildlife. The request was made by Severn Trent Water, which owns the land.

Mr. Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The tradition is that hon. Members should accept interventions, and I have done so myself, but it is also a tradition that those interventions should be on point and on the group of amendments. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has nothing to do with the present debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Member knows that whoever has the Floor has the discretion whether to give way. I am anxious that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) should remain within the rules of order, and I am sure that he will remember that.

Mr. Foster: To quickly bring my point to an end, Severn Trent invited people to flush out foxes with hounds so that the foxes could immediately be shot, not so that they could be hunted.

Mr. Howarth: I said in an intervention that the advice I had received was to the effect that the Bill would not contravene the convention, and articles 1 and 8 in particular, which were mentioned last week. It might be helpful for me to give the House details of the legal advice that I have received from Home Office lawyers on the matter. In doing so, I do not in any way compromise the Government's neutrality.
First, I am aware that the paper produced by my noble Friend Baroness Mallalieu perceived problems with the European convention on human rights, in relation both to this Bill and to future legislation that might seek to ban hunting with hounds. Legal arguments outlined in her paper are based on specialist leading counsel's advice. The paper details the grounds on which the Bill may be challenged in regard to articles 1, 8, 11 and 14 of the convention, to which I have already referred.
The legal advice that I have received reaches a different conclusion. Article 1 of protocol 1 entitles a person to the "peaceful enjoyment" of his possessions. It further provides that no one should be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest, and subject to the conditions provided for by law.
As I said last week, the Bill will not result in anyone's possessions being confiscated unless they commit a criminal offence. Rather than depriving anyone of their


possessions, the Bill would merely control the use of property, whether it be farmland, dogs or any similar property. As such, the Bill is not comparable to the firearms legislation, under which people were being deprived of possessions. Furthermore, only if there were deprivation of possessions would the issue of compensation arise.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister for returning to the House with that refined legal advice, about which he and I spoke last Friday. He is right to say that no one could confiscate land, so that the Bill is not, in that regard, comparable with the firearms legislation.
I am genuinely surprised, however, at the narrowness of the legal interpretation that the hon. Gentleman has been given. I am advised that the Bill could affect the value and yield of land by reducing the range of pest control options that are available to landowners—as the hon. Gentleman will know, the National Farmers Union made that point in its cold response to the Bill. Issues of value are covered by article 1, so will he address that specific point?

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman said that he was surprised at the narrowness of the advice, but I think that his point is even narrower.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

10 am

Mr. Howarth: No, I want to press on and put the advice on the record.
As I said, in the light of the advice that I have been given, the issue of compensation does not arise. Public interest, which was mentioned last week, is relevant only when a person is deprived of property, not when merely the use is controlled.
Article 8 was also mentioned last week. As I said, there is nothing in the jurisprudence on the convention to suggest that a ban on hunting with dogs contravenes the right to privacy. In particular, Strasbourg has expressed the view that article 8 does not encompass the right to keep a dog. If, as we assert, the right to privacy is not interfered with, there is no need to consider the exceptions that are set out in article 8(2), which allows such interference in circumstances such as national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, and protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 11 of the convention provides for the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others. The advice is that the Bill would prevent neither any assembly nor association. The hunters would still be free to assemble at any time, but they could not hunt wild mammals with dogs.
By itself, article 14 does not give rise to rights, even though another article need not have been violated to establish a breach of article 14—it must be shown that there has been some discriminatory restriction of the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms given by another article. According to the advice, there is no such discriminatory restriction under the Bill, so article 14 does not apply.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough asked me whether, under clause 19 of the Human Rights Bill, I would be happy to sign a certificate of compliance. In the light of the advice and the point that I have just made, there would be no difficulty in that.

Mr. John Gummer: I am sure that the Minister will allow me to be helpful in saying that, in my reasonably long experience in the House, I have not always found that the legal advice given by Home Office lawyers to Secretaries of State, let alone Ministers, has been entirely applicable in practice. As there seems to be some dispute between people who are extremely learned in the law, it would perhaps be sensible if the Bill's promoter accepted new clause 2, to which I want specifically to refer.
The new clause would allow for the widespread concerns to be met, not by emasculating the Bill but by ensuring that, if those concerns turn out to be well founded, the Bill could be adapted accordingly without having to go through this whole ponderous procedure again. The Minister's legal advice does not change my belief that accepting new clause 2 and the amendments would be to follow a precautionary principle, if I may use an environmental term.
There is another reason why the new clause and the amendments should be accepted. It is notable that, during our discussions, the differences of opinion have led to considerable alterations to the Bill. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will see the relevance of new clause 2 to that. Those in favour of the Bill believed that the Bill, as originally drafted, was considerably flawed, so they talked out that Bill in Committee, so that they could introduce the Bill we are considering now.
I add, parenthetically, that I am a little tired of having to answer on television and radio the question whether we are over-speaking on the Bill by explaining that we have not had the chance to discuss this Bill, because there was a wholly different Bill in Committee. Indeed, just a moment ago, Madam Speaker made a statement on what was, in fact, a suggested third way in which to deal with the issue.
New clause 2 and the amendments would enable a Minister to take into account post hoc the problems that had been foreseen. In all the years that I have been in the House, I have known no Bill that has been subject to such transmogrification on so many occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] If Labour Members do not know the word "transmogrification", I suggest that they read F. Anstey's "Vice Versa", which I am sure is a better read than the many versions of the Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Bill contains wider powers to seize property and chattels than any that he has seen? If the property and chattels were seized on the suspicion of a constable, but that suspicion proved to be incorrect, could not that be regarded as a breach of the European convention on human rights?

Mr. Gummer: I shall come to that point, but I am trying to keep closely to the context of new clause 2. I suggest that the experience of those who want to ban hunting with hounds—who have needed, in a short period, to produce three different versions of the Bill—should show them the need for the new clause and amendments.
Those who are unhappy about the Bill would also benefit if the new clause and the amendments were accepted. The purpose of the House is, above all, to ensure that proposals that will affect the liberty of Her Majesty's subjects should be carefully scrutinised to ensure that there is no unfair discrimination against any section of the population. The Labour party has made a great fuss about that, and I have considerable sympathy with it in many areas of civil liberties.
I am speaking for my constituents, a significant number of whom would be imperilled by particular provisions in the Bill. This is a constituency, not a general, matter, although it has a general application. A significant number of my constituents are involved in hunting. The Bill will bear heavily on the three hunts which, in different ways, cover parts of my constituency. New clause 2 and the amendments would ensure that, if my fears are well founded, remedial action can be taken.
Let me give an example. As I said in a previous debate, a peculiarity of the Bill, as interpreted by many lawyers, is that it would mean that, if people hunted on one's land without one's express permission, but one had not forbidden them to do so, one could be deemed to have permitted them to do so. Labour Members said that that was not how the law would be interpreted, but it has been widely stated by significant figures in the legal profession that that is precisely how it would be interpreted.
Many of my constituents are small farmers, and others have a certain amount of land. They would not be able to say in advance that someone was coming hunting, so if someone hunted illegally across their land, they would be caught by the legislation. The new clause would enable the Government to stand up for their rights; so the Government could not be taken to the European Court of Human Rights because of flawed Home Office advice.

Mr. Streeter: I was brought up on a dairy farm, and my father never gave permission to the local hunt to ride over his land, but from time to time the hunt did so. Is not my right hon. Friend's point that the Bill might have made a criminal of a law-abiding farmer who did not give express permission, but did not put up barricades to stop the hunt?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) may have made that point, but the debate is about whether the Secretary of State should have powers.

Mr. Gummer: I have kept strictly to the reasons why I feel it right for the Secretary of State to have those powers. One is that there is a real concern on the point that I was making. The Bill's supporters have not been willing to give way on that concern. Because there is a serious disagreement among lawyers, added point is given to the argument that the Secretary of State should have those powers, so that, were it to be found that the significant body of lawyers whose view I happen to share were right, the Secretary of State could properly protect the rights of the individual.
I am keeping closely to the new clause and its purpose. I would not stretch into the area about my hon. Friend's father, but I would say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is one of the most jealously guarded duties of the House to protect those who are least likely to have a voice.
The new clause would avoid the problem of ordinary people taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights. I am genuinely concerned that we in the House should not place that huge onus on people if we can avoid it. If the Bill's supporters are right, and it does not have those widely expected effects, they should not mind the new clause, which would not prevent the Bill from operating, but would merely provide a safety net.
Many of those who attacked hunting most passionately have changed their minds with experience. We always mention James Barrington and Richard Course, but there are many others. They have shown that one can be passionate on one side of an argument and find that one is wrong. The new clause would simply give the Government the chance to make changes in those circumstances. I hope that the House will support it.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made an excellent speech last Friday. He said:
I am pretty cautious about what I am prepared to send my fellow citizens to prison for. Whatever our individual views, likes and dislikes may be, and however strong they are, we must think carefully before we turn activities into criminal offences.
He linked that with the new clause by saying:
A statutory instrument, even one subject to affirmative resolution, is normally debated for only an hour and a half—almost invariably by a Committee rather than by the whole House.
In Committee, it is not possible to amend the statutory instrument in any way…The House has sought to recognise on many occasions—certainly if this House does not, the other place, in its revising role, does—that that is not an adequate process by which to create new criminal offences."—[Official Report, 6 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 1352.]
In Committee on the Bill—or the previous Bill, or whatever it was—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said:
We all know that secondary legislation puts considerable power into the hands of the Secretary of State and the Executive in a way that primary legislation does not…I have sat on the Government Front Bench in many a Committee and been asked…'Why are you dealing with matters in secondary legislation? Is it not just a way of bypassing the House?"'
She added:
In future, any manifesto promise can be dealt with in secondary legislation. We shall not have to go through the horrible bore of bringing primary legislation before the House to prove the case line by line and subjecting it to the various parliamentary stages."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 17 December 1997; c. 32–33.]
That is at the heart of the new clause. The general case against statutory instruments, that they bypass discussion in the House, is stronger than ever when the subject matter of the legislation is controversial, as the Bill is. Statutory instruments are unsuitable when there is controversy, because the suspicion always lingers that they will be used by partisan members of the Executive in underhand ways, and that decreases the confidence of the House in its own effectiveness.
The Bill is intended to be criminal law. What happens by virtue of any statutory instrument created under the terms of the new clause would involve the scope of the criminal law. It is wrong for the Bill to be framed in terms of criminal law at all, but if it is to be criminal law, it is inappropriate that statutory instruments should be used to modify it.
10.15 am
I would expect any statutory instrument on hunting that is laid before the House to be debated, and I think that the House would agree. It is a matter of concern that the scope of debate on statutory instruments is severely limited, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said. When statutory instruments are being debated, no criticisms of the provisions of the parent Act are permitted, according to page 548 of "Erskine May".
The whole purpose of the new clause is to rescue the situation in the countryside if the Bill does not work. Debating a possible solution without debating the source of the failure is just not good enough for a Bill that is intended to improve animal welfare, but could easily end up having the reverse effect.

Mr. Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree—I say this as a strong supporter of our membership of the European Union—that one of the glories of the British constitution is that, in comparison with any of the assemblies and Parliaments in the rest of Europe, we sit longer and go through legislation in greater detail, in order to protect the rights of minorities? Should we not be exporting that to the rest of Europe, rather than denying it to our people?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have a memory of the mechanisms by which the House debated the Maastricht treaty, and any comparison is greatly to the disadvantage of almost every other legislature in the European Union. The defence of minorities and unfashionable views is one of our primary roles.
Two former chiefs of the League Against Cruel Sports, Richard Course and James Barrington, predict that the Bill will have the reverse of its intended effect. I would not be satisfied by the permitted scope of debate on statutory instruments, and nor would the Bill's supporters. It is an abolitionist Bill, and the House would expect to re-run the entire debate on it whenever the Secretary of State attempted to introduce any statutory instrument that reduced its effect, because, according to its supporters, every little part of it concerns matters of principle.
Even if the Secretary of State wished to modify the ban in respect of one species in one small area for a limited time for a special reason in favour of a small number of people, the Bill's supporters would not accept that the change was small. They would choose to see it as a breach of principle.
With a breach of principle, it does not matter whether the breach is a hairline crack or a hole the size of a fist. At the first sign of a statutory instrument, anti-hunting Members will be on their feet again, trying to reassert the so-called principle of this abolitionist Bill. I am happy to debate with them in private, but, if a future Secretary of State were to lay a statutory instrument, the House would have better things to do than have a debate on hunting—just as it has better things to do today.
I said that I would be brief. I have addressed the issue of statutory instruments, and I wish to turn briefly to the question of the European convention, about which the Minister spoke. I was grateful to the Minister for considering the issue again. The point that I sought to make in my intervention was that the advice that he had been given was that article 1 dealt with possessions.

A respectable body of legal opinion takes the view that possessions, per se, are not the exclusive remit of article 1, but that it extends to the fact that possessions have a value.
It was in that sense that I said to the Minister that his interpretation was narrow. His response to the legitimate question I asked him—whether value was not also a part of article 1—was to say that my point was narrow. I am happy to concede that it was narrow, but that was not an answer to my question.
My question is whether the value of possessions is also incorporated in article 1 of the convention. That is important, because the Bill would deprive people of value. I gave the Minister two examples in my intervention. It is clear from the Minister's body language that he will not seek to intervene to answer my question, and my right hon. and hon. Friends will draw the conclusion that the Bill's validity as against article 1 of the European convention is dubious.
Because I undertook not to speak for long on the subject, and because it is clear to the House that the Bill faces a problem under article 1, I shall not go through the other articles that the Minister covered. In Committee, the Minister said:
the advice that I have received is that clause 1 is indeed defective and that if it were to proceed in its present form, the Bill would not be in a reasonable state to go on to the statute book. That said, the Government accept that we have a responsibility to ensure that the Bill is in good order before it leaves the House of Commons."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 4 February 1998; c. 162.]
The Minister took on some responsibility for the Bill, and produced Bill 2, which is what we are debating today, Madam Speaker having ruled Bill 3 out of order. If the Minister is not prepared to address the questions about the European convention in the detail necessary, given that he has—foolishly, I believe—assumed some responsibility for the Bill, my right hon. and hon. Friends and all those who oppose it can only come to the conclusion that the co-sponsors of the Bill, the Government and the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), have something to hide.
That is a matter for serious concern, and I have no doubt that we will return to the subject when the Human Rights Bill is considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. In the meantime, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to think carefully about the Minister's reticence before they determine how they will vote on new clause 2.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several of my hon. Friends and myself have sat throughout the debate on the clauses—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Accepting or refusing a motion on closure is entirely a matter for the Chair, and is not a matter of argument.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Denis MacShane: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am


making this point of order, wearing this ludicrous hat, so as not to take up debating time. Can you give me guidance? In the light of last week's filibustering, and the unspeakable behaviour of the Tories, who pursued indefensible tactics against the will of the people and of Parliament, do you have power under the procedures laid down in Erskine May to ensure that debate on the Bill is completed by 2.30 pm, and that it passes to the House of Lords?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is expecting far too much of the powers of the Chair. The Chair presides over the orderly conduct of debate, according to well-accepted rules. We shall make such progress as is possible, according to how many hon. Members seek to catch my eye, and the manner in which they pursue the discussion of the content of the groups of amendments that are before us. We shall proceed through the amendments in an orderly manner—there is no short cut that the Chair can impose.

The House having divided: Ayes 132, Noes 42.

Division No. 205]
[10.24 am


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Gale, Roger


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Atkins, Charlotte
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Austin, John
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Hancock, Mike


Barnes, Harry
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Begg, Miss Anne
Hill, Keith


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Home Robertson, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bradshaw, Ben
Hutton, John


Brake, Tom
Iddon, Dr Brian


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Buck, Ms Karen
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Burden, Richard
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Butler, Mrs Christine
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Caplin, Ivor
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Casale, Roger
Lepper, David


Caton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Cawsey, Ian
Love, Andrew


Clapham, Michael
McCabe, Steve


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
McFall, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
McIsaac, Shona


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Clwyd, Ann
McNamara, Kevin


Coaker, Vernon
McNulty, Tony


Cooper, Yvette
MacShane, Denis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Corston, Ms Jean
Martlew, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Merron, Gillian


Darvill, Keith
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Miller, Andrew


Dobbin, Jim
Moffatt, Laura


Dowd, Jim
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Etherington, Bill
Morley, Elliot


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mountford, Kali


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Flint, Caroline
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Flynn, Paul
Norris, Dan


Foster, Don (Bath)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



Olner, Bill





Palmer, Dr Nick
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Pickthall, Colin
Southworth, Ms Helen


Pike, Peter L
Squire, Ms Rachel


Pound, Stephen
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Primarolo, Dawn
Stinchcombe, Paul


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Quinn, Lawrie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rammell, Bill
Timms, Stephen


Rapson, Syd
Tipping, Paddy


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Todd, Mark


Rendel, David
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rooker, Jeff
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruane, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Walley, Ms Joan


Savidge, Malcolm
Watts, David


Sawford, Phil
White, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mr. John Heppell and



Mr. Joe Benton.




NOES


Arbuthnot, James
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Blunt, Crispin
Lansley, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Luff, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan, Alan
Maginnis, Ken


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Öpik, Lembit


Garnier, Edward
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Spring, Richard


Gray, James
Streeter, Gary


Greenway, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Woodward, Shaun


Hawkins, Nick
Yeo, Tim


Heald, Oliver



Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Noes:


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Mr. Owen Paterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 136.

Division No. 206]
[10.36 am


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Gray, James


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, John


Blunt, Crispin
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heald, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Hoey, Kate


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Garnier, Edward
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gill, Christopher
Lansley, Andrew


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Leigh, Edward






Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


MacKay, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Woodward, Shaun


Maginnis, Ken
Yeo, Tim


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian



Öpik, Lembit
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prior, David
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Owen Paterson.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Lepper, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Love, Andrew


Austin, John
McCabe, Steve


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
McDonagh, Siobhain


Barnes, Harry
McFall, John


Begg, Miss Anne
McIsaac, Shona


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bennett, Andrew F
McNamara, Kevin


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
McNulty, Tony


Bradshaw, Ben
MacShane, Denis


Brake, Tom
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Martlew, Eric


Buck, Ms Karen
Merron, Gillian


Burden, Richard
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Miller, Andrew


Byers, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Caplin, Ivor
Morley, Elliot


Casale, Roger
Mountford, Kali


Caton, Martin
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Cawsey, Ian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Clapham, Michael
Norris, Dan


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Olner, Bill


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Pickthall, Colin


Clwyd, Ann
Pike, Peter L


Coaker, Vernon
Pound, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Cooper, Yvette
Primarolo, Dawn


Corbyn, Jeremy
Prosser, Gwyn


Corston, Ms Jean
Quinn, Lawrie


Cousins, Jim
Rammell, Bill


Cox, Tom
Rapson, Syd


Darvill, Keith
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Rendel, David


Dobbin, Jim
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Dowd, Jim
Rooker, Jeff


Etherington, Bill
Ruane, Chris


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Savidge, Malcolm


Flint, Caroline
Sawford, Phil


Flynn, Paul
Sedgemore, Brian


Foster, Don (Bath)
Shaw, Jonathan


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Skinner, Dennis


Gale, Roger
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Southworth, Ms Helen


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Hancock, Mike
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Hill, Keith
Stinchcombe, Paul


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hutton, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Iddon, Dr Brian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Timms, Stephen


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Tipping, Paddy


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Todd, Mark


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)





Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Walley, Ms Joan



Watts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


White, Brian
Mr. John Heppell and


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. Joe Benton.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

MINK

'.—(1) Subject to compliance with subsections (2) and (3), hunting of feral mink with dogs shall be permitted on any land, river, lake, waterway or coastal area at the request of the owner or occupier thereof where that person reasonably believes that mink need to be controlled there in order to protect or conserve fish (whether required for angling or human consumption), waterfowl, ground nesting birds or other wild life.
(2) Any person hunting mink under subsection (1), should take all reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary damage to habitat or wild life.
(3) When any otter is located during the course of hunting all dogs under the control of the person hunting shall be withdrawn from the vicinity immediately.
(4) Hunting of feral mink shall not be permitted in any area certified by the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as unsuitable for hunting because of likely disturbance to the habitat of wild life, provided the relevant Agency controls the mink in such area by other means.
(5) For the purpose of this section "owner" shall include riparian owner.'.—[Kate Hoey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Angela Smith: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask the Serjeant at Arms, through you, why it is taking so long to clear the Aye Lobby? Can the Serjeant at Arms be sent into the Lobby to see why the delay has occurred?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall keep an eye on the situation, but the length of time taken for the Division, 12 minutes, has not yet been excessive—it has taken one minute longer than the previous ones. Certainly, if any further time passes, I shall send the Serjeant in.

The House having divided: Ayes 42, Noes 139.

Division No. 207]
[10.47 am


AYES


Blunt, Crispin
Hawkins, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Heald, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Johnson Smith,


Garnier, Edward
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gill, Christopher
Lansley, Andrew


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Leigh, Edward


Gray, James
Luff, Peter


Greenway, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
MacKay, Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David






Maginnis, Ken
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wilkinson, John


Öpik, Lembit
Woodward, Shaun


Prior, David
Yeo, Tim


Robathan, Andrew



Spicer, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Owen Paterson.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Atkins, Charlotte
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lepper, David


Austin, John
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Love, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
McCabe, Steve


Begg, Miss Anne
McDonagh, Siobhain


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McFall, John


Bennett, Andrew F
McIsaac, Shona


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bradshaw, Ben
McNamara, Kevin


Brake, Tom
McNulty, Tony


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
MacShane, Denis


Buck, Ms Karen
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Burden, Richard
Martlew, Eric


Butler, Mrs Christine
Merron, Gillian


Byers, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Miller, Andrew


Caplin, Ivor
Moffatt, Laura


Casale, Roger
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Caton, Martin
Morley, Elliot


Cawsey, Ian
Mountford, Kali


Clapham, Michael
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Norris, Dan


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Olner, Bill


Clwyd, Ann
Palmer, Dr Nick


Coaker, Vernon
Pickthall, Colin


Coleman, Iain
Pike, Peter L


Cooper, Yvette
Pound, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Corston, Ms Jean
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Cousins, Jim
Primarolo, Dawn


Cox, Tom
Prosser, Gwyn


Darvill, Keith
Quinn, Lawrie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Rammell, Bill


Dobbin, Jim
Rapson, Syd


Dowd, Jim
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Rendel, David


Etherington, Bill
Rooker, Jeff


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Ruane, Chris


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Flint, Caroline
Savidge, Malcolm


Flynn, Paul
Sawford, Phil


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sedgemore, Brian


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Shaw, Jonathan


Gale, Roger
Skinner, Dennis


Gibson, Dr Ian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Hancock, Mike
Squire, Ms Rachel


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Hill, Keith
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hutton, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Iddon, Dr Brian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Timms, Stephen


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Tipping, Paddy


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Todd, Mark


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)





Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Watts, David



White, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. John Heppell and



Mr. Joe Benton.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

GUN PACKS

'.—(1) A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if as a member of a gun pack:

(a) he hunts foxes with dogs for the purpose of culling, whether or not foxes are killed by dogs in the process, or
(b) he hunts an injured fox in order to kill it with dogs where it is reasonably believed by the person in control of those dogs to be the most effective method of killing it.


(2) In this section "Gun Pack" means any club or association registered with the Welsh Farmers Fox Control Association or any like Fox Control Association with similar purposes established in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland and which operates according to the code of practice prescribed by that Association'.—[Mr. Öpik.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 138.

Division No. 208]
[11.2 am


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Blunt, Crispin
Lansley, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Luff, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan, Alan
Maginnis, Ken


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Öpik, Lembit


Garnier, Edward
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gray, James
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Streeter, Gary


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Wilkinson, John


Hawkins, Nick
Woodward, Shaun


Heald, Oliver
Yeo, Tim


Hoey, Kate



Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mr. Peter Atkinson and



Mr. Owen Paterson.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Bradshaw, Ben


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brake, Tom


Atkins, Charlotte
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Buck, Ms Karen


Austin, John
Burden, Richard


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Butler, Mrs Christine


Barnes, Harry
Cable, Dr Vincent


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Caplin, Ivor


Bennett, Andrew F
Casale, Roger


Boateng, Paul
Caton, Martin


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cawsey, Ian






Clapham, Michael
Miller, Andrew


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Moffatt, Laura


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Morley, Elliot


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Mountford, Kali


Clwyd, Ann
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Coaker, Vernon
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Coleman, Iain
Norris, Dan


Cooper, Yvette
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Olner, Bill


Corston, Ms Jean
Palmer, Dr Nick


Cousins, Jim
Pickthall, Colin


Cox, Tom
Pike, Peter L


Darvill, Keith
Pound, Stephen


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Dobbin, Jim
Primarolo, Dawn


Dowd, Jim
Prosser, Gwyn


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Quinn, Lawrie


Etherington, Bill
Rammell, Bill


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Rapson, Syd


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Flint, Caroline
Rendel, David


Flynn, Paul
Rooker, Jeff


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ruane, Chris


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gale, Roger
Savidge, Malcolm


Gibson, Dr Ian
Sawford, Phil


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Sedgemore, Brian


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Shaw, Jonathan


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Skinner, Dennis


Hancock, Mike
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Hill, Keith
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Hutton, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Iddon, Dr Brian
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Timms, Stephen


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Tipping, Paddy


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Todd, Mark


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Lepper, David
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Love, Andrew
Vis, Dr Rudi


McCabe, Steve
Walley, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Watts, David


McFall, John
White, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Whitehead, Dr Alan


McNamara, Kevin
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


McNulty, Tony
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


MacShane, Denis
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Marshall—Andrews, Robert



Martlew, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Merron, Gillian
Mr. John Heppell and


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Mr. Joe Benton.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 18

HUNTING BEGINNING IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

'A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog on land in Northern Ireland in circumstances where his hunting of that mammal begins in the Republic of Ireland and continues over the border into Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Maginnis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 32—Incidental hunting in Northern Ireland—
'.—(1) An offence shall not be committed pursuant to section 1(1) if a wild mammal is hunted in Northern Ireland only incidentally to a hunt which begins and ends in the Republic of Ireland.
(2) A hunt begins in the Republic of Ireland if the pursuit of the wild mammal begins there.
(3) A hunt ends either by the wild mammal being killed or by the decision to stop hunting provided always that no offence is committed pursuant to section 1(1) if the wild mammal is killed in Northern Ireland and the hunt began in the Republic of Ireland.
(4) A wild mammal may not be dug out or bolted in Northern Ireland in the course of a hunt which incidentally crosses into Northern Ireland as described in subsection (1).
(5) In circumstances where section 1(1) is excepted by subsection (1), no offence can be committed by any person under section 1(2), (3) or (4).
(6) If a dog or dogs should become lost in the course of a hunt excepted by subsection (1) then a person who finds, keeps and returns that dog or those dogs within a reasonable period to its owner or keeper shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1(4).'.
Amendment No. 101, in clause 14, page 5, line 37, leave out 'extends' and insert 'does not extend'.

Mr. Maginnis: New clause 18 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and others. The new clause reads:
A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1)"—

Mr. Michael J. Foster: Having considered new clause 18, on this occasion I am perfectly willing to accept it.

Mr. Maginnis: I am heartened that common sense is to prevail, but for the benefit—

Mr. Gray: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) may be prepared to accept new clause 18 but I am not, and I shall happily try to speak to that effect shortly.

Mr. Maginnis: I shall try to proceed at least to the stage where I have read the new clause.
A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog on land in Northern Ireland in circumstances where his hunting of that mammal begins in the
Irish Republic
and continues over the border into Northern Ireland.
11.15 am
As supporters of any legislation to abolish hunting appear to have limited knowledge of hunting and of rural communities where hunting is practised, it is necessary for me to enhance their understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland, especially when such hunting occurs adjacent to the land border with the Irish Republic.
When Bills do not apply to Northern Ireland, politicians from Great Britain usually have the luxury of legislating for clearly defined sea borders and, fortunately, most can still recognise water, even if it is seldom imbibed by


some. Even Bills that do apply to Northern Ireland will generally regulate activities that do not, by their nature, involve our land frontier with the Irish Republic.
However, hunting does involve cross-border activity. I am disappointed to see that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who was in his place earlier, has not returned—[Interruption.] Oh, there he is, and I am delighted to see him arrive: I know that, with his cross-border interests, he will give considerable support to the new clause.
The Bill fails absolutely to distinguish properly between what is lawful and what is a criminal offence when the activity of hunting crosses from one landowner's property to another. It allows the hot pursuit of quarry species from land where a request to hunt is in force on to "neighbouring land". "Neighbouring land" is poorly defined. It could mean the adjacent parcel of land that is all under one possessory title.

Mr. Richard Spring: I believe that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that part of the considerable difficulty about this matter is that the border is not fenced or marked clearly, and huntsmen might inadvertently cross it, with all the difficulties that would then arise.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I shall deal with that point as I progress.
"Neighbouring land" could also mean the adjacent parcel of land that is under the same agreement for sporting rights. It could mean the adjacent county or national park. However, it was never clear what effect, for example, roads or rivers would have on the definition of "neighbouring". What is neighbouring, and how far does it extend? What impediments in the path of a hunt mean that land is no longer neighbouring? I am dwelling on the complexities of the issue.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman mentions the complexities of the issue. In fact, they go further than may seem apparent at first sight. As he knows, because of the common travel area, it is perfectly legal to cross the border on lawful business, but my legal advice is that, if the Bill became law, it would be perfectly legal for a hunt to meet in Northern Ireland and to move to the Republic of Ireland to start hunting, but it would be illegal for a hunt to meet in the Republic and to hunt in Northern Ireland. So there would be confusion and anomalies and we need to discuss the new clause to resolve the matter.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am dwelling on the complexities of the issue—and the failure of the Bill to get to grips with the dilemma—so as to caution hon. Members that those complexities are 10, 20 or 50 times worse when two neighbouring jurisdictions, not merely two neighbouring pieces of land, are involved.
I am concerned about the lack of knowledge about Ireland and Irish hunting displayed by some hon. Members. In Committee, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), in a most impassioned speech, referred to the Irish sport of "crated stag hunting". He drew attention to the terrible plight of stags being

brought in crates to be hunted, albeit that they were later released and not shot. The sport to which he referred is carted stag hunting, where stags are brought to the hunt in horse boxes. There is no reference to the imaginary sport of crated stag hunting anywhere in literature or mythology. It appears only in the hon. Gentleman's speech. The fact that some hon. Members are still handicapped by their lack of knowledge of Irish hunting is derived exclusively from briefings from the League Against Cruel Sports, including typographical errors. I am determined to bring some enlightenment, and I would be happy to help the hon. Gentleman further.

Mr. Cawsey: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's arguments for a united Ireland. He appears to have undergone a pleasing conversion. However, in respect of hunting carted or crated stags, I remind him that both terms can be used.

Mr. Maginnis: Of course the House has the power to legislate over certain matters, but I am not sure that individuals have the authority to change the English language and traditional terms quite as glibly as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do.

Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) raises a serious point about the Bill representing all sorts of precedents to unity between the two countries. Does he agree that the measure involves not just two jurisdictions, but two different countries? Will the huntsmen need to wave their passports as they charge by? That, at least, would make some sense.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman touches on a pertinent point. I suspect that huntsmen will be required not only to carry their passports, but to sign a declaration as they enter Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic saying, "I am now entering Northern Ireland with the express purpose of breaking the law," so that their purpose is absolutely clear.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: My understanding is that people do not have to carry a passport to travel between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Cattle do, of course, but to the best of my knowledge no cattle in Northern Ireland enjoy the pursuit of fox hunting.

Mr. Maginnis: Indeed. Although cattle are required to have passports, it is exceedingly difficult to arrange passports for foxes. I am afraid that we are getting into deeper water.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman has got to the heart of the new clause, which is about making people into criminals. With the typical gay abandon that we have come to associate with the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and his supporters, they are seeking to criminalise citizens of the Irish Republic. However, the hon. Gentleman and I both know that under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, matters that are of importance to both to the Republic and to Northern Ireland—matters much less significant than turning citizens of the Irish Republic into criminals—are required to be debated under the terms of that agreement at Maryfield and perhaps at


intergovernmental conferences. What intergovernmental discussions have taken place over the Bill's proposal to criminalise Irish citizens?

Mr. Maginnis: The right hon. Gentleman does not go far enough. The Bill would criminalise not only those in the Irish Republic who inadvertently crossed the frontier into Northern Ireland but people from Northern Ireland who took the advice that they had been given and interacted with people in the Irish Republic. If a person from Northern Ireland joined a hunt in the Irish Republic which then inadvertently crossed into Northern Ireland, he would be committing an offence in pursuit of developing a good relationship with people in the Irish Republic.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Although not a legislative body that can legislate jointly in respect of laws that apply to Northern Ireland and to the Republic of Ireland, the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body debates such matters. I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that I cannot stay in the Chamber to hear the rest of his speech because I am currently chairing a committee of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body on another subject. Does he agree that this matter could usefully be on that body's agenda? Does he agree that, if the Unionist parties joined that body, it would carry very much more weight? Does he also agree—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have made a sacrifice by leaving one meeting to come to this one, but he must not make a speech on an intervention.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman has raised a matter that involves various aspects. The length of his intervention enabled him to make several points—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Yes or no?

Mr. Maginnis: I am delighted to respond to the sedentary intervention by the hon. Member for Hull, North. He might well apply that requirement to his friends in the Irish Republic in respect of the need for a referendum on whether articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Irish Republic should be abolished. However, I digress.

Mr. Colvin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Is he aware that members of the Dail and members of the Senate in Dublin have debated fox hunting? They thought that the House would be very unwise to proceed with the Bill. Will he speculate on what might happen if the former Taoiseach, the very sporting Mr. Charles Haughey, were to cross the border into the Province in pursuit of a fox?

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is intriguing. I acknowledge that the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, is much engaged in field sports activities. Only recently he fell off his horse, breaking his leg. If, in the circumstances outlined by the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Haughey strayed across the frontier—which he has always had a predisposition to do—I wonder whether, being confronted by a 6ft member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who, as Mr. Haughey would obviously be

breaking the law, would call on him to desist, and the same former Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, possibly having his mind on other matters, such as why the local grocer has not added to the £1.3 million contribution that has enabled him to pursue many sports, including—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be advised to come back to the substance of the matter, and not to indulge in the discussion of personalities.

Mr. Maginnis: I thought you might advise me that that would be a wise course of action, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that the former Taoiseach might be preoccupied with other things, and might fall off his horse again, perhaps breaking the other leg. Other legislation would have to be enacted because of the possibly litigious reaction of the former Taoiseach. During the past weeks I have been sitting on the Committee that is considering the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. There we have dealt with the very situation in which, if a policeman causes death or injury to a person, he can face a charge and the Police Authority can face a claim for damages. That would create the most embarrassing situation.
I must not digress; I want to make progress. I assure the House that hunting is legal in Ireland and is not subject to anything like the same organised slander and vituperation from career lobbyists as it is in Great Britain. This is a good point at which to remind the House that no other European country gives house room to the excesses of animal rights zealotry that we seem to tolerate in the United Kingdom.
Opening the Royal Dublin horse show in August last year, the Irish Agriculture Minister, Mr. Walsh, spoke strongly against a ban on hunting in the United Kingdom, warning that it would seriously harm Ireland's horse industry. He said:
A ban on foxhunting in Britain would severely affect Ireland's £100 million sports horse industry and place in jeopardy the livelihoods of the 10,000 people involved in it. Banning the sport in Britain would directly affect the Irish horse industry as many of the horses used in hunts in Britain were purchased over here"—
that is, over in Ireland. Mr. Walsh continued:
As far as I am concerned, foxhunting is not a cruel sport and I support all rural pursuits.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, particularly in relation to national hunt racing, the sports in Ireland and in the rest of the UK are intimately connected? Given the importance to national hunt racing of the Cheltenham festival and the huge Irish involvement in that, does he agree that it would have a huge impact on legitimate sport in this country if national hunt racing were damaged, as it would be by the Bill's application in Ireland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be the case, but it is nothing to do with the new clause.

Mr. Maginnis: There is an inter-relationship between hunting and horse breeding. The industry, which means a great deal both to the Irish Republic and to Northern


Ireland, and in which there is a natural interface between Irish nationalists from the Irish Republic and members of the United Kingdom, would be harmed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause is about hunting and going across the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. That is the matter to which the hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks.

Mr. Maginnis: I have made my point about the inter-relationship.

Mr. Leigh: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has thought through his own new clause. He has dedicated his life to the cause of Unionism. We are discussing an activity that would be banned throughout the United Kingdom. If his new clause were accepted, that activity would not be banned simply because it emanated from the Irish Republic. Is he happy with that state of affairs?

Mr. Maginnis: I hope that most hon. Members recognise that Ulster Unionists are not against normal social relationships between us and our neighbours south of the frontier. It is political interference to which we object. Despite our annoyance at political interference, we are generous enough not to allow that to inhibit normal social relationships. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that he will not confuse political interference with normal good neighbourliness, which Ulster Unionists have always endeavoured to show to those in the Irish Republic.

Mr. Tim Boswell: What troubles me about the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is the possibility that the Bill might be seen to constitute British political interference in the affairs of the Irish Republic, on the ground that activities that were banned in Northern Ireland were bound to have an impact across the land border into the Irish Republic. Would that not send entirely the wrong signals with respect to Irish political and general relations?

Mr. Maginnis: We must, of course, legislate for our own jurisdiction. We must be conscious of how that might impact on the good neighbourliness that we wish to show to those who live in the Irish Republic, but that cannot dominate our approach to a problem.
In Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic combined, there are 40 packs of fox hounds registered with the Irish Masters of Foxhounds Association, 33 harrier packs, 23 beagle packs and two mink packs. There are, perhaps, 140 additional unregistered quarry packs. Interestingly, there are no drag hunts, despite all the attractions that we are told that that equestrian sport may have—an argument advanced persistently and, I suspect, insincerely, by the anti-hunting lobby.
There is no question but that hunting generates employment in Ireland in the same way as it does in Great Britain, but the contribution of hunting to the development of human and equine talent is significantly and proportionally more important to the respective Irish economies than it is to the mainland's. There is no prospect that, if the United Kingdom implements

anti-hunting legislation, the Irish Republic will reciprocate with anti-hunting legislation. That will have long-term consequences for hunts that cross the border. Last Saturday, the South Tyrone hunt met at Glaslough in County Monaghan—which, for those who may be unaware of it, is in the Irish Republic—and it pursued a fox that crossed the border into my constituency in County Tyrone, with hounds and the field following behind.
In pointing out the issues that arise from cross-border hunting, I want hon. Members to realise that it is not a theoretical situation put up to expose abstract, logical flaws in the draft legislation. Cross-border hunting happens continually, and the legislation will have practical consequences for farmers, hunts and individuals, and the unique social status quo that exists along the border.

Mr. Hawkins: I can reinforce the hon. Gentleman's claim that he is not talking about a theoretical situation. During my career at the Bar, I came across a gentleman from County Monaghan who was acquitted in the United Kingdom courts. He was asked by a police officer to produce his driver's licence at a police station and he told the officer that he would produce it at the police station in Monaghan, County Monaghan. The police officer did not realise that Monaghan was in the Irish Republic, and thus the gentleman was acquitted of a criminal offence.

Mr. Maginnis: Many do not appreciate the realities of the land frontier between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. That frontier is not all marked or fenced and it is easy to cross inadvertently. Hounds and foxes are unaware that such a border exists.
One could make the case that, if the United Kingdom adopts anti-hunting legislation, the situation would be tough but fair—or would it? It would be all right to hunt in the Irish Republic, but, if one were to hunt in the United Kingdom—including Northern Ireland—one would be a wicked criminal and liable to arrest. It is hard luck if people do not know where the frontier is between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. I know that there are absolute offences on the statute book where inadvertent activities have been punished with the full force of law. That would certainly be the case if one were found in possession of an article that required a licence in the United Kingdom but not in the Irish Republic.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman not in danger of making the case for a united Ireland?

Mr. Maginnis: I never cease to be amazed by the naivety of those who would promote the concept of a politically united Ireland. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that the Ulster Unionists have never intended to do anything to inhibit the natural social relationships that have existed traditionally over the centuries between those who live in what is now the Irish Republic and those who live in Northern Ireland. I would be disappointed if the hon. Gentleman sought to inhibit that social relationship on the pretext that to have social interaction is to concede a political principle. However, judging from the hon. Gentleman's record in the House, I am not sure how much he knows about political principles.
11.45 am
I am sorry, I must regain my train of thought. The difficulty is that hunting is a much more complicated activity than carrying a shotgun, which requires a licence and which people know requires a licence. A ban on hunting would infringe a traditional and social activity that has been commonly carried out for centuries without regard to jurisdiction or frontier—in fact, there was hunting before the frontier was established.
Hunting involves multiple participants—one could argue that some participate actively in the hunting and others are merely spectators. There is fast movement, and the hunt may cross and recross the border so that the activity may end in the jurisdiction where it began. However, in the interim, it may infringe the other jurisdiction. There is also the still unresolved question of what "to hunt" means, and whether that includes picking up a scent, how and where a huntsman instigates the activities of dogs, and the tendentious problem of whether dogs are instruments or agents—that is to say, whether the huntsman uses the dogs to hunt or whether the dogs would have an instinctive capacity to make their own decisions even if they were set a different task, such as drag hunting or flushing out.
What will happen if someone sends a dog after a rabbit in the Irish Republic and that dog crosses the border—or vice versa—and begins to chase a hare? The question is baffling enough in one jurisdiction without the added complexity of considering its implications in another. What will happen if the legislation is made to apply to Northern Ireland and someone initiates a hunt in the Republic and remains there while the hounds cross the border and hunt? Will the offence of hunting be treated in the same way as drugs offences in some jurisdictions, whereby activities in one jurisdiction that have an effect in a second jurisdiction may be tried under the laws of that second jurisdiction?
Do not imagine that I am describing a contrived situation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If United Kingdom-wide hunting legislation is adopted, the anti-hunting pressure groups will not waste the opportunity to assert their moral triumphalism and extract publicity for themselves by urging the prosecution of Irish hunt followers under United Kingdom law. In December last year, the Irish Independent reported the plans of British hunt saboteurs to cross to the Irish Republic and harass British hunt followers who hunted in Ireland if hunting were banned in the United Kingdom. Those saboteurs would still enjoy an anarchy awayday.
The many foot packs that hunt along the border inform me that they frequently cross over. The master of the West Down beagles is insistent that his beagles cross the border all the time, as do the hounds of the Oriel Harriers, which are kennelled at Walterstown in County Dondalk—for the uninitiated, County Dondalk is in the Irish Republic. Real people stand to be prosecuted for pursuing a traditional rural pursuit that is not an offence in their own country. They could be prosecuted for chasing the same fox or hare on the same field owned by the same farmer because that farmer's field may be situated partly in the Irish Republic and partly in Northern Ireland. We could hardly engineer a situation that would offend natural justice and common sense more.

Mr. Hogg: Is there not another problem to which the

hon. Gentleman has not yet drawn attention? If fox hunting is prohibited on the Northern Ireland side of the frontier but allowed on the Republic side, that may displace foxes from one side to the other, which would certainly irritate enormously farmers on the side of the frontier to which the foxes go.

Mr. Maginnis: Indeed. Anyone with a knowledge of rural pursuits, who has grown up as I have in the country, will realise that animals migrate towards the most secure area. The hooded crow, which does such damage to game birds by robbing their nests and destroying their young, was seldom seen in Northern Ireland in my youth because it sought uninhabited areas such as mountainsides. That is where we went to shoot those carrion. Now, because of the security situation, fewer people carry weapons for sporting purposes and people go less often to remote areas, and it is not uncommon to see the hooded crow in the centre of urban areas.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend raises the question of firearms. Is there not a case to be made, when shooting is an alternative method of controlling foxes, for reducing the number of firearms in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I see no connection between that point and the question whether hunting with hounds crosses the border.

Mr. Maginnis: In the case of a hunt where the huntsman remains in the Irish Republic but the followers cross the border, how will the existing extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic be applied to the suspects? If the huntsman, who, after all, controls the hounds, remains south of the border, but the field of followers crosses into the United Kingdom, who will be prosecuted and with what principle of fairness?
I now wish to deal with possible solutions. First, I acknowledge the ethical problem that Northern Ireland presents to the Bill's supporters. They conceive of hunting as a moral wrong and of their Bill as a matter of principle, even if it is a principle that they apply selectively to certain attractive mammal species such as foxes and not to unattractive ones such as rats. They know that they cannot make a law that would apply in the Irish Republic, but that it is within the powers of this House to apply laws—indeed, to apply moral precepts—to Northern Ireland.
The Bill's supporters must want the legislation to apply to Northern Ireland—it is impossible to believe otherwise. If they think that fox hunting is cruel, wicked and wrong in every county in England, why would they not think it wrong in the six counties of Northern Ireland? If they fail even to try to apply their imagined moral principle wherever they can, they will betray that principle. That is what puzzled me about the willing acceptance of this clause by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) at the beginning of my speech.
Do the Bill's supporters maintain that the experience of hunted animals in Northern Ireland is subjectively different from the experience of those on the mainland? That is the only justifiable reason for not applying the Bill throughout the United Kingdom. Perhaps they maintain that the motivations of those who hunt differ on each side


of the Irish sea. Some supporters of anti-hunting legislation are obviously motivated by the class or cultural associations of hunters who wear red coats and have posh voices. Whether or not they admit it, such people form a tiny minority of the hunting scene. Perhaps the critics of hunting imagine that they are excused from disliking hunters in my part of the world because they are cut from a different cloth and are not quite as posh as hunters from the home counties.

Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of recent remarks by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who said that one of his main objections to the act of fox hunting was that those who take part in it are from class A1—the nobs? Does he agree that, by those remarks, the hon. Gentleman exposed his true class hatred?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is well outside the scope of the amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will bring his speech back within the confines of the amendment quickly and concisely.

Mr. Maginnis: I shall certainly endeavour to do so. However, first I must say that those self-same people to whom the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) refers are far more likely than poor hunting enthusiasts to go hunting in Northern Ireland after a selective ban on the mainland. The richer people are, the less a limited territorial ban will inconvenience them. Conversely, the poorer people are and the more they rely on hunting for free pest control, the more affected they will be.

Dr. Desmond Turner: Would the hon. Gentleman support the reintroduction of boar hunting in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Maginnis: Of course. However, you would not permit me to go into that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The issue of domesticated animals must include the question whether the original crime was to domesticate dogs. Had we not done so, dogs would have hunted freely throughout the length and breadth of Northern Ireland and we would have had to find a way of hunting them to limit the destruction that they would carry out. I fear that you will rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I continue down that route.
The Bill's proponents will grind their teeth with frustration if those whom they dislike most are allowed to continue hunting, so I should be extremely surprised if the opportunity were not taken to extend the ban to Northern Ireland. That is how the Bill has been drafted. Do the proponents of the Bill no longer want to extend it to Northern Ireland? The hon. Member for Worcester will no doubt tell me.
Tentatively, I am suggesting a compromise in the way in which criminal law should be drafted to ban hunting in Northern Ireland. If it is to be drafted at all, it must be done to protect cross-border hunting from the tangle of legal jeopardy which would arise. I shall welcome any amendment that excludes the offence of hunting in Northern Ireland—first, where the person or persons accused of hunting believed they were in the Irish

Republic at the time they initiated hunting and, secondly, where hunting is initiated in the Republic but crosses into Northern Ireland.
In a case where the defendant is accused of hunting in Northern Ireland, the burden of proof must properly rest with the prosecution, and it should be up to the prosecution to establish that the defendant must have reasonably known that he was in Northern Ireland. All the circumstances would be properly taken into account, along with the defendant's experience of hunting in the area and the presence of landmarks known to the people in the locality. If that initially appears to favour the home counties set who may go to the Irish Republic if a ban on hunting is enacted in the UK, so be it—in so far as they would be a minute element of those so engaged in the pursuit.

12 noon

Mr. Leigh: This is a ridiculous argument. Hunts go across the unmarked border in the midst of a chase. How can the police prove beyond reasonable doubt that a hunter knew or did not know that he was in Northern Ireland at any time?

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman makes my point well. The complexities of this nonsensical legislation would be such that we would find ourselves in that ridiculous situation. Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the traffic jams in our court system when these cases are brought, one after another? I have suggested the number of packs of hunting dogs registered in Ireland as a whole. Can you imagine the logjam when this sort of prosecution occurs?
Any warning that the hunt was given that it was crossing the border—such as verbal warnings and signs—would need to be taken into account, so it is not even as simple as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) suggests. We must decide also whether it could be reasonably assumed that the warning signs or verbal warnings were coming from hunt saboteurs, rather than a genuine source. It should be possible, knowing the ingenuity of those who draft legislation, to draft the law such that any hunt that continues hunting after a genuine warning that it has crossed into Northern Ireland will be committing an aggravated offence.
In the circumstances, care must be taken that only the hunt followers who have heard or seen and disregarded such a warning are prosecuted, and that those who dissociate themselves from the cross-border hunting are spared from prosecution. Someone harvesting in a field in an area where a hunt is taking place who stops to view the spectacle of the hunt must not be deemed to be participating in or aiding and abetting the process of illegal hunting.
I recognise that prosecutions and defences under such terms will have difficulty in establishing where the suspects believed they were at the material time, but it will always be possible to detect a flagrant breach of the exemption I am suggesting. As my argument has illustrated, that is a simple matter for those who will draft the legislation.
I am coming towards the end of what I have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps in a few years, it will be possible to exclude the tricky problem of establishing the defendant's knowledge, state of mind and understanding


by obliging the field master of every cross-border hunt to carry a global positioning system satellite navigation aid, pre-programmed with the map co-ordinates of the border. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the border weaves its way north, south, east and west and turns back in on itself frequently. However, I expect that scientists will be able to provide such a warning device to be used by hunts approaching the frontier.
In the meantime, hunts must be given the benefit of the doubt. In so far as this Parliament has banned the passive sport of pistol shooting and paid a huge amount of public money so to do, it may ultimately be possible for those who can prove that they are genuinely involved in hunting to obtain a grant from public expenditure to purchase GPS satellite navigation aids, but that is for the future.
When hunting is initiated in the Republic but continues or concludes in Northern Ireland, it should be exempted from the offence. I am aware that opponents of hunting have vivid imaginations and will immediately speculate on what might happen. They will imagine protracted hunts, arranged to start in the south within yards of the border and penetrating up to 90 miles into Northern Ireland. That would be plausible to the supporters of the Bill, judging by the touching belief of the hon. Member for Worcester in the 90-mile fox hunt that he read about in dusty chronicles from hundreds of years ago. In the realms of reality, cross-border hunting would not impose more than a mile or two into the north and could not in practice lead to such heavy exploitation of the exemption that hunting would continue throughout Northern Ireland. The range of hunts is naturally limited by territorial obstacles and the sheer practicalities of hunting.
I admit that providing for cross-border hunting raises difficult questions of jurisdiction and jurisprudence, but so does not providing for it, so I make no apology for having taken some time to outline the alternatives available to hon. Members when they are considering the ramifications of anti-hunting legislation.
I appeal to the hon. Member for Worcester to reconsider the entire project. Look across the border—the Republic of Ireland and France have failed to find any compelling reason to ban hunting and a ban is not even on their agenda. I hope that he will accept that those are civilised countries and that we have something to learn from our nearest neighbours. The hon. Gentleman has dropped his definition of hunting and dropped clause after clause in favour of Home Office drafting. Now, he has dropped his redrafted Bill. He should take one last little step—he should just drop it.

Kate Hoey: I am genuinely pleased to be following the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in his detailed and accurate outline of the difficulties that would be imposed in Northern Ireland and the Republic if the Bill were enacted unamended.
I welcome the comment by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) that he is prepared to accept the new clause, and I hope that he means that he intends to accept amendment No. 101, which would mean a complete exemption for Northern Ireland. He did not make it clear whether he would accept the whole exemption or simply redefining the exceptions from the Bill. I expect that he will contribute and make that clear.

Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Lady agree that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) should bear in mind

the fact that the Act to which he wants to annex the provisions in new clause 35 does not apply to Northern Ireland? Therefore, he can have no objection in principle to amendment No. 101, which disapplies the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Kate Hoey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. His point shows that the details and technicalities of the Bill were not carefully thought out. It is all very well to propose legislation, but legislation that is unenforceable will bring Parliament into total disrepute, especially in the context of Northern Ireland. We are facing a difficulty.
As the Bill has been considered in Committee and on the Floor of the House, many hon. Members—including many who are not here today—have become more and more concerned about the way in which the Bill would be implemented; they do not believe that a ban would be the way forward.
I say, in response to what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said, that I know the Fermanagh area well—indeed, I have driven around it with the hon. Gentleman. When driving a car, one can suddenly find that one is not in Northern Ireland but in the Republic of Ireland—even people who live in the area can become confused. The fox or the huntspeople from the Republic cannot possibly work out exactly where they are at any time, so I do not believe that the proposals to place reasonable restrictions on the exemptions go far enough—I want the exemption to be general.
Hon. Members who are in favour of the Bill often talk about public support, but they and the public have not begun to understand what the Bill would mean in practice—even in the House, that has been difficult to put across. There has been no consultation with the political parties or the people of Northern Ireland. If legislation is to be acceptable—even if some people do not agree with it—there must be a general feeling that it is reasonable and can work, but the Bill, particularly as it relates to Northern Ireland, would be nonsense.
It may seem reasonable to exempt a hunter who, when he realises that he is hunting in Northern Ireland, takes steps to stop the hunting, but in practice that would create considerable difficulties. The prosecution would have to prove—which is difficult in law—that the hunter knew that he was hunting in Northern Ireland. Given that there is not a clearly marked border, it would be difficult to establish that the hunter had such knowledge. The police would have to explore his state of mind, in the same way that they would have to interview a person suspected of handling stolen goods to establish whether he knew or believed the goods to be stolen.
Given all the problems that Northern Ireland faces, it would be wrong to put such an additional huge demand on police resources, which are already stretched, especially in the border areas. Even if extra resources were to be granted, most investigations would not produce conclusive results. It would be extremely difficult for anyone to police the proposed measures. Even those who do not want any exemptions must know that the Bill could not work in practice.
The House should not enact legislation prompted by the emotion of those who believe that they can advance the cause of animal welfare. We in the Middle Way Group do not believe that the Bill will help animal welfare.


When the Bill falls, we can work with those who genuinely want to improve animal welfare and care about the rights of minorities and about the countryside.
The new clause will take us a step forward. The hon. Member for Worcester has listened today, because he now accepts this very sensible new clause and amendment, and I am pleased about that. I hope that he will give a little more thought to everything else that has been said, and especially some of the comments from people who have thought seriously about the issue and who, although they approached it from different positions, all came to the view that the Bill is nonsense and cannot work.

Mr. Bennett: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: New clause 32 is an attempt to deal with the problem elucidated by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). She and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) know the location much more intimately than I do, but I know it to some extent, because my duties as a Law Officer led me to travel regularly in Northern Ireland. I frequently visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I know how the border zig-zags across the country.
I do not know exactly how long the border is, but I know that, although it is only about 70 to 90 miles as a crow might fly, the actual length, along the boundaries of the old counties, is about 300 miles. The border, wending its way along the edges of the counties of Armagh, Monaghan, Tyrone and Fermanagh, creates a real problem.
Many hunts operate in the area. The larger clubs—as hunts over there call themselves—are Navan and Armach, Maddena, Middletown, Derry Noose, Trillick, Keady Carrick, Longfield, Lisbellan, Drumcramp, Newtown Butler, Derryline, Roslea, Corraney and Lackey. That is just the larger clubs north of the border. In the Republic of Ireland, the large clubs include Castleblaney, Clontdiret, Tullycorbe, Castleshame, Ardachey, Tappach, Tyholland, Ballinode, Scotstown, Knockatallon, Emyvale, Glaslough, Carrickroe, Scotchhouse, Redhills, Connons and Butlersbridge.
There are a great many smaller clubs. The Irish hunts tend to use smaller packs of dogs than those used in Britain. They hunt partly using ordinary packs of dogs to chase a fox, and partly with followers acting as gun packs, operating pest control in the area. Therefore, with so many hunts operating in that area, it is essential, if the Bill—which, I hasten to add, I am radically opposed to in principle—were ever to be enacted, that the problem should be tackled.
I welcome the indication from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) that he is minded to accept one of the amendments. I do not know whether he has yet decided which amendment he will accept, or whether he is simply minded to accept some amendments in principle.
New clause 18, tabled by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, deals with a hunt that begins in the Republic of Ireland. New clause 32 deals with a hunt that begins and ends in the Republic, and the key words are:
if a wild mammal is hunted in Northern Ireland only incidentally".
In that case, there would be no deliberate attempt to hunt in Northern Ireland, but the new clause recognises that a mammal being hunted, probably a fox, would pass to and fro across the border with no knowledge of what it was doing. The hon. Member for Worcester recognises that hunt followers will pass across the border without necessarily knowing where they are. I mention those points because they highlight the real legislative and legal difficulties that are bound to arise in such situations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) pertinently asked whether the hon. Member for Worcester intends to accept amendment No. 101, which would provide that the Bill would not extend to Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that amendment, he will be consistent only with the inconsistency that he has shown in the remarkably inept way in which he drafted the Bill. He subsequently redrafted it and attempted, at dead of night only 36 hours ago, wholly to reframe it through new clause 35, which was rightly not selected.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), in an earlier intervention, rightly pointed out that if new clause 35 were to be considered, it would propose to abolish hunting by adding an offence to the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which the House passed by common consent two years ago. That would have been totally out of order, but the relevant point is that the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 does not extend to Northern Ireland. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Worcester now intends that the Bill should extend to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Garnier: He does not know, either.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Member for Worcester could intervene to clarify the position. It may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I outline, briefly but in a little detail, the problems that he has to tackle and the reasons why he has tackle them.
The reason why we must make an exception for the border is founded on comity of nations and on the ability of two nations—both, in this case, members of the European Union—to live peaceably together and ensure that their laws amalgamate satisfactorily. This is not the point at which to discuss the effects of the European convention on human rights, although I am sure that we shall discuss it further. The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is open, there is a common travel area, people are free to pass and repass lawfully, there are no fences and customs points, and most of it is not marked up. Passing the Bill would be discriminatory and disproportionate.
Another problem of this badly drafted Bill, which is equally relevant to new clause 35, is that hunting is not defined. One does not know whether subscribers to the pack, followers on foot, on horseback or in cars, or only the huntsmen, would be hunting. How would people who were riding, driving or walking across the border and anxious not to transgress the law, show their intent to


return to the Republic of Ireland after the hunt? Is it the duty of someone on horseback to whip the hounds off when the border is crossed, notwithstanding that he is not the whipper-in? Should people disengage entirely from the hunt when the border is crossed and go back across the border, therefore depriving themselves of their right to pass and repass?

Mr. Barry Gardiner: indicated dissent.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) shakes his head, sniggers and giggles. It is plain that he has not begun to think through these important issues. He does not recognise the seriousness of the fact that we are dealing with criminal law, and willingness to criminalise people. Let us keep away from the point of principle; we are dealing with a point of detail.

Mr. Gardiner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must appreciate that, if hunting with dogs became illegal, people would not engage in it, so innocent bystanders would not face the problem of being brought into it.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman has clearly only just entered the debate, and does not even know what it is about, which epitomises the difficulty the country faces with the Bill: it criminalises hunting, and is supported by people who do not know what they are doing, who wander into a debate without taking the trouble to listen—

Mr. Cawsey: Three quarters of the people of this country support it.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been the cheeky chappie throughout. He says that three quarters of Britain supports the Bill, but it is as little understood by those people, whom he bogusly claims support his position, as it is by the hon. Member for Brent, North, who is known in the House as a man of considerable expertise in the areas that he understands. We usually listen to his contributions with respect, but today he has seen fit to arrive late and to giggle with his hon. Friends, and he made an intervention that showed that he does not know or care what he is talking about.
The hon. Gentleman is talking about criminalising fellow United Kingdom subjects, and citizens of the Republic of Ireland, who would have lawfully started a hunt in their own country, and crossed the border after a fox and the chasing hounds.
To give him credit, the hon. Member for Worcester has at least begun to realise that there is a problem, and, for the very first time in the long and turgid course of the Bill, has given the first signs that he is prepared to discuss seriously with those who disagree with him some of the problems related to his Bill. I genuinely welcome that.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall, who is not in her place, describes herself as a member of the Middle Way Group. I am not, but I am willing to look sensibly at this problem. I want—here I attract the attention of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) again—the country better to understand the problem. I do not believe that fox hunting is any more cruel than other methods of pest control. That is well illustrated by the fact that ordinary

people living just north or just south of the border in Northern Ireland have many small packs in a closely confined area operating as a form of pest control.
12.30 pm
What we are concerned with now is how to deal with the problem in the most effective way. I am grateful for the indication that it will be looked at more fully. I recommend that the provisions of the Bill be kept away from Northern Ireland altogether, but that is a matter for further discussion. I do not wish to speak for too long in this comparatively short debate. I know that others want the opportunity to speak, so I shall sit down now.

Mr. Hogg: I shall speak briefly. I want to concentrate on amendment No. 101, tabled in my name, the purpose of which is to provide that the Bill should not apply to Northern Ireland. I rather hope that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) might in due time try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to state that that is his view. It certainly was his view 36 hours ago.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said, in the dead of night right up against the last moment, the hon. Gentleman slunk into the House and tried to incorporate his Bill into the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which does not apply to Northern Ireland. It would be extremely odd if he said that his Bill should apply to Northern Ireland when, but a day and a half ago, he was prepared to concede that it should not.

Mr. Gray: That would not be out of character. My right hon. and learned Friend may recall that, in Committee, the hon. Gentleman proposed an amendment, spoke in favour of it, and then voted against it.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. I hope that the hon. Member for Worcester will in due time rise in his place and say that he accepts amendment No. 101, but I should like to say why he should do so.
Some of the arguments that I shall briefly make are in fact the same as those made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is a porous one. People cross to and fro, and it is not marked. It would be an absurdity if people who were lawfully doing an activity in the Republic and inadvertently crossed into Northern Ireland should be considered to have committed a criminal offence. It is much worse when one reflects that the Bill enables a court to make forfeiture orders that would deprive persons from the Republic who had acted lawfully of their possessions.
The problem goes further. I think that it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire who raised the question of what constituted hunting. I should have thought that, if the fox hounds crossed the border even though the hunter did not, the offence would be deemed to have been committed. One is also obliged to ask what would be the position of the landowner on the Northern Ireland side on to whose land a hunt from the Republic had inadvertently crossed. Under


clause 1(2), a landowner who permits the hunt—albeit an Irish hunt—to take place on his land in Northern Ireland will be committing an offence.

Mr. Owen Paterson: May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that, throughout the Bill's consideration in Committee, we on the Opposition Benches pressed the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), and his helper, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr.Cawsey)—to define "hunt"? They continually came back to the concept that this must be left to the common sense of magistrates. Will my right hon. and learned Friend, as an eminent lawyer, consider that point?

Mr. Hogg: Indeed. I should have thought that anybody associated actively when the hunt goes out is hunting. It is not just the person on the horse, but the foot supporter, the person on the bicycle or in the car, the person who attends the meet just to see the fox hounds. I think that many people would be deemed to be hunting within the scope of the Bill, albeit they may not be riding to hounds. The narrow arguments advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone are wholly correct.
There is also the question of displacement. If one prohibits fox hunting in Northern Ireland but it remains lawful in the Republic, as will be the case, the foxes will migrate to Northern Ireland. I should have thought that the farmers of Northern Ireland would be extremely cross to see a greatly increased fox population on their land.
There is a further point, which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone raised: we all support inter-community relations across the border. Fox hunting is an extremely popular activity. The idea that one should prevent people from the Republic from coming into the north to do something that both communities want to do—something that promotes community relations—is absurd.
I shall raise one or two broader issues before I sit down. I am not in favour of accentuating the differences between the Republic and the north. Relations are sometimes fraught enough without making serious differences between them in the criminal law. In any event, it should be a matter for discussion with the Government and the institutions of the south before we pass laws that could criminalise the activities of their citizens.
My final point is about authority. The House is talking about devolution in the United Kingdom, and the creation of assemblies. It is likely—I hope that it will be the case—that we shall see an assembly in Northern Ireland. This is precisely the issue that should be left to that assembly, and, in particular, to the people of Northern Ireland.
I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who made it plain that, in her view, there is no support in Northern Ireland for the Bill. That observation was supported by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It is intolerable, in terms of democracy and liberality, that the House should seek to prohibit an activity in Northern Ireland when we all know that there has been no consultation in Northern Ireland, and the House has no authority from the people of Northern Ireland to support the proposal.
I would venture a bet—I am looking at the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone—that almost all the elected Members from Northern Ireland are opposed to the Bill. It does not have their authority. It is not for us to seek to impose its provisions on the people of the Province.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I do not plan to make a long speech; I want to focus on just two points. Before I do so, may I say that I was impressed by the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) introduced the new clause. I suspect that he knows that I have never owned a red coat and I never will. I have never had a posh voice and I never will, but I am proud of my accent. That accent gives me a legitimacy over and above my membership of the House to say a few words about the new clause.
Let us cut to the bottom line. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) wants to see a number of his fellow citizens put in prison for up to six months for doing what has legitimately, constructively and helpfully been done and enjoyed in the countryside for generations. That is what the Bill is about. We now understand that he wants to do the same thing for citizens of the Irish Republic.
The hon. Member for Worcester intervened at the beginning of the debate to say that he was willing to accept something, but it was not clear what it was. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) welcomed that gesture, in a typically generous way. But the incident told the House something about the hon. Member for Worcester. I do not think that he maliciously wants to put Irish citizens in prison; I think that that possibility never occurred to him. That trivialisation of the criminalising of people is perhaps the single greatest charge that can be laid against the hon. Gentleman and his Bill.
We have been told repeatedly in the debate that the hon. Gentleman clearly knows nothing about Northern Ireland. There is a 300-mile border, which—as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) so vividly described—has no regular indication to show someone whether he is north or south of it or whether his journey criss-crosses it. Local people have difficulty, so it is no wonder that the hon. Member for Worcester does not begin to understand the consequences of his own legislation. As the fox moves backwards and forwards across the border, unaware that it is doing so, and the hunt follows it, the huntspeople will be exposed to the threat of multiple arrest. The hon. Gentleman neither knows nor cares about that.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, people own land that straddles both sides of the border. Sitting in his kitchen, a resident of Northern Ireland may be innocent of an offence, but people on his property may be variously innocent of an offence and guilty of an offence, as people move across the field, without ever moving off his property. The hon. Gentleman does not care about that.

Mr. Gray: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: No, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way, as I said that I would not keep the House long, and I do not intend to.
Numerous problems and legal difficulties will be created by the indistinct nature of the border. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone


And I will both be able to recall many occasions when cows crossed the border. In some cases, the cows got dizzy moving backwards and forwards across the border—every time they did so, Brussels paid another £70 per head to some farmer. But the hon. Member for Worcester does not know, does not understand and does not care.
Clause 8 gives a constable the right to arrest without warrant, so we face the prospect of Irish citizens being summarily arrested—not that the hon. Member for Worcester cares. He is not even listening to the debate, and nor is the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who might have an interest; but the House is, and, more importantly, the country is. Members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be empowered by the Bill summarily to arrest Irish citizens who may not even realise that they are in Northern Ireland.
Clause 8 also gives the constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary a right to detain the animals—the horses and the dogs—as evidence in subsequent trials. What thought has the hon. Member for Worcester given to that? Absolutely none, because he does not care.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The right hon. Gentleman is not as nice as he looks.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I agree. I should not have had the nerve to say that about the hon. Member for Worcester, but, as the Minister describes him in those terms, I will agree with the Minister that his hon. Friend is not nearly as nice as he looks. The reason we know that is the Bill, and the contempt for the House that he shows in promoting it.
I said that I would be brief, and I want to address my second point. Earlier in the Bill's passage, the Minister said that he had assumed, on behalf of the Government, some responsibility for it. We understand why, because the hon. Member for Worcester is not safe to be let out alone.
However, the consequences of the Bill will affect Anglo-Irish relations. My question to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone was not a time-wasting question. The relationship between the north and south of Ireland is one of the most contentious issues that the Government are facing, and they are facing that issue with Opposition support, because we all recognise the deep significance to the lives of people who are British citizens as well as Irish citizens, of—historically—getting things right for the first time in generations.
12.45 pm
The Government sit there, without a Northern Ireland Minister on the Treasury Bench, willing to contemplate, on the back of supporting the Bill, all the consequences that will flow for the relations between the two countries—

Mr. McNamara: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having heard that there is likely to be a closure motion,

may I point out that those of us who are passionately opposed to new clauses 18 and 32 and amendment No. 101 have not so far had an opportunity to explain why?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The hon. Gentleman should know that a closure is within my gift, and he does not know what is likely to happen.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I said that I would not be long, and I tell the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that I am almost finished, but I am making a serious point. The Bill addresses issues concerning the liberty of the individual, and we have examined them in detail. We are now examining questions of the liberty of Irish citizens who come into Northern Ireland, who may not even know that they are in Northern Ireland.
There are four Ministers on the Treasury Bench. It is worrying that they can sit there and not say that the Bill may have negative consequences for Anglo-Irish relations, and for relations between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland, stemming from the implications and the application of the Bill in this context. I say to the Minister that, in whatever time is available before the Chair exercises its authority, it would be helpful to hear the Government's view at least on this aspect of new clause 18, even if the Minister does not want to get into the broader issues that so exercise the House.

Mr. Bennett: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 40.

Division No. 209]
[12.48 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cooper, Yvette


Ainger, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try, NE)
Corston, Ms Jean


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cox, Tom


Atkins, Charlotte
Cranston, Ross


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Darvill, Keith


Austin, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Barnes, Harry
Dobbin, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bennett, Andrew F
Dowd, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Boateng, Paul
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Etherington, Bill


Bradshaw, Ben
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brake, Tom
Flint, Caroline


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burden, Richard
Gale, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gardiner, Barry


Caplin, Ivor
Gerrard, Neil


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caton, Martin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cawsey, Ian
Godman, Norman A


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Hurst, Alan






Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prosser, Gwyn


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Rammell, Bill


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rendel, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ruane, Chris


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Savidge, Malcolm


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sawford, Phil


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Shaw, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Skinner, Dennis


Lepper, David
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCabe, Steve
Southworth, Ms Helen


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Spellar, John


McDonagh, Siobhain
Squire, Ms Rachel


McFall, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McIsaac, Shona
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McNamara, Kevin
Stinchcombe, Paul


McNulty, Tony
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


MacShane, Denis
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mallaber, Judy
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Timms, Stephen


Martlew, Eric
Tipping, Paddy


Merron, Gillian
Todd, Mark


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Miller, Andrew
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Moffatt, Laura
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Mountford, Kali
Walley, Ms Joan


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Watts, David


Naysmith, Dr Doug
White, Brian


Norris, Dan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Wicks, Malcolm


Olner, Bill
Winnick, David


Palmer, Dr Nick
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Perham, Ms Linda
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L



Pollard, Kerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pound, Stephen
Mr. John Heppell and


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Mr. Joe Benton.




NOES


Arbuthnot, James
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Lansley, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Luff, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Colvin, Michael
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maginnis, Ken


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mates, Michael


Garnier, Edward
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Gill, Christopher
Öpik, Lembit


Gray, James
St Aubyn, Nick


Greenway, John
Spring, Richard


Grieve, Dominic
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hawkins, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Woodward, Shaun


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Yeo, Tim


Hoey, Kate
Tellers for the Noes:


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mr. Owen Paterson and


Johnson Smith,
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 154.

Division No. 210]
[1 pm


AYES


Baldry, Tony
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Luff, Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Colvin, Michael
McNamara, Kevin


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maginnis, Ken


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Mates, Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Garnier, Edward
Öpik, Lembit


Greenway, John
Robathan, Andrew


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hawkins, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Woodward, Shaun


Hoey, Kate
Yeo, Tim


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Johnson Smith,
Mr. Peter Atkinson and



Mr. Owen Paterson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gerrard, Neil


Ainger, Nick
Gibson, Dr Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Godman, Norman A


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Atkins, Charlotte
Grieve, Dominic


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Austin, John
Hancock, Mike


Barnes, Harry
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Heppell, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Hill, Keith


Benton, Joe
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hurst, Alan


Boateng, Paul
Hutton, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Bradshaw, Ben
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Brake, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Buck, Ms Karen
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Burden, Richard
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Casale, Roger
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cawsey, Ian
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Clapham, Michael
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Lansley, Andrew


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Leigh, Edward


Coaker, Vernon
Lepper, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Coleman, Iain
Love, Andrew


Cooper, Yvette
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Corbyn, Jeremy
McCabe, Steve


Corston, Ms Jean
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Cousins, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Cox, Tom
McFall, John


Cranston, Ross
McIsaac, Shona


Darvill, Keith
McNulty, Tony


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
MacShane, Denis


Dobbin, Jim
Mallaber, Judy


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Merron. Gillian


Efford, Clive
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Etherington, Bill
Miller, Andrew


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Moffatt, Laura


Flint, Caroline
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliot


Gale, Roger
Mountford, Kali


Gapes, Mike
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Gardiner, Barry
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan






O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Olner, Bill
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Perham, Ms Linda
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Streeter, Gary


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Pound, Stephen
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Timms, Stephen


Primarolo, Dawn
Tipping, Paddy


Prosser, Gwyn
Todd, Mark


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rammell, Bill
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rapson, Syd
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rendel, David
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruane, Chris
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Watts, David


St Aubyn, Nick
White, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sawford, Phil
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Shaw, Jonathan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)



Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. James Gray and


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. Richard Spring.


Spellar, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) said that he was minded to accept new clause 18, but, in the recent Division, he did not bother to vote, and encouraged his hon. Friends to vote against it. Does that not portray his casual attitude to the Bill and to the rights of 250,000 people who wish to hunt, and to the situation in Northern Ireland? Why did he not vote for the new clause, having advised the House that he wanted it passed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No hon. Member has a casual attitude to the business of this House.

New clause 19

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SHOOTING IS UNSAFE OR IMPRACTICAL

'A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if he hunts any wild mammal with dogs on land where the owner or occupier thereof reasonably considers that such hunting is necessary in order to kill, control or disperse such mammals and either:—

(a) because the public have rights of access thereto or such land is in close proximity to a highway or public right of way or otherwise the owner or occupier reasonably considers it unsafe to kill or control such mammals by shooting, or
(b) the owner or occupier of such land reasonably considers that it is impractical to kill or control such mammals by shooting.'.—[Mr. Luff.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 128.

Division No. 211]
[1.13 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Lansley, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Luff, Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chope, Christopher
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Colvin, Michael
Maginnis, Ken


Curry, Rt Hon David
Mates, Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fallon, Michael
Öpik, Lembit


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gray, James
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Streeter, Gary


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tyrie, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Woodward, Shaun


Heald, Oliver
Yeo, Tim


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael



Hoey, Kate
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Mr. Edward Leigh and


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mr. Peter Atkinson.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Gibson, Dr Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Godman, Norman A


Atkins, Charlotte
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Austin, John
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Barnes, Harry
Hancock, Mike


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Bennett, Andrew F
Hill, Keith


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Bradshaw, Ben
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Brake, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Buck, Ms Karen
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Caplin, Ivor
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Casale, Roger
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cawsey, Ian
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Clapham, Michael
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Lepper, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Love, Andrew


Coaker, Vernon
McCabe, Steve


Coffey, Ms Ann
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Coleman, Iain
McDonagh, Siobhain


Cooper, Yvette
McFall, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McIsaac, Shona


Corston, Ms Jean
McNulty, Tony


Cousins, Jim
MacShane, Denis


Cranston, Ross
Mallaber, Judy


Darvill, Keith
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Martlew, Eric


Dobbin, Jim
Merron, Gillian


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Dowd, Jim
Miller, Andrew


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Moffatt, Laura


Efford, Clive
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Etherington, Bill
Morley, Elliot


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Mountford, Kali


Flint, Caroline
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Gale, Roger
Norris, Dan


Gapes, Mike
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Gardiner, Barry
Olner, Bill


Gerrard, Neil
Palmer, Dr Nick



Perham, Ms Linda






Pickthall, Colin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Timms, Stephen


Prosser, Gwyn
Tipping, Paddy


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rammell, Bill
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rapson, Syd
Vis, Dr Rudi


Raynsford, Nick
Walley, Ms Joan


Ruane, Chris
Watts, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Savidge, Malcolm
Wicks, Malcolm


Sawford, Phil
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mr. John Heppell and


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. Kevin McNamara.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Peter Brooke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tried to catch your eye in the aftermath of the vote on new clause 18. I was one of those hon. Members with Northern Ireland experience who rose to speak at that stage. I make no complaint whatever about the closure, not least because the question that I wanted to ask was the last question asked by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, but one of the consequences of your accepting the closure was that the Minister, who also rose, was unable to reply to that question. As it is a question of no little importance in the context of the Northern Ireland talks, I wonder whether, through you, I could ask the Minister to write to my right hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but perhaps the Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While the Minister is reflecting on that, may I ask whether you would allow a vote on new clause 20 if it were now to be moved formally? It was selected for debate by Madam Speaker and formed part of the subject matter of our longest debate so far today.
I know that we have already had a debate on new clause 2, but the substance of new clause 20 is different, as the former would have allowed the activities defined in the Bill to be reduced by an order of the Secretary of State, whereas the latter would simply allow the definitions to be changed if they proved inaccurate. On that basis, I think that the opinion of the House should be tested, and I wonder whether you will allow a vote.

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hawkins: It is further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me answer the point of order.
It is for the Chair to decide whether to allow a vote, and I have decided that we will not have a vote on the matter. We must move on to the next new clause.

New clause 21

LOCAL REFERENDUMS

'.—(1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply in those parishes where a local referendum has been held and a simple majority of those voting support the continuation of hunting in their area.
(2) Referendums organised tinder this section will be financed by the hunt seeking permission to hunt in the area in question, and not from public funds.'.—[Mr. Öpik.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Öpik: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 97, in clause 14, page 5, line 34, leave out from 'force' to end of line 35 and insert
'upon the making of an order by the Secretary of State which shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft has been approved by each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Öpik: An earlier point of order cast aspersions on the reasons of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) for not voting in favour of the Northern Ireland changes. I take a more charitable view. At an early stage in the debate, the hon. Gentleman said that he was willing to take our position on board, and he eventually abstained. That shows that he changed his mind twice owing to the merits of the debates that he heard.

Mr. McNamara: Is it possible that his mind was changed by the fact that none of those who said how keenly they felt about the matter, such as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), could be bothered to refer it to the Maryfield secretariat, which deals with precisely such matters affecting Northern Ireland citizens that the British Government might be acting on? The Unionists had a perfect opportunity to put all their grievances to the secretariat.

Mr. Öpik: No. I wish to point out that, assuming those in favour of the Bill are not playing games, the hon. Member for Worcester has himself shown the importance of having a deep and considered debate on the issues involved. That is why we propose local referendums. They would ensure that justice was done if hunting were to be banned. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to point out to the House that it is unfair to the hon. Gentleman speaking if so many conversations are taking place.

Mr. Öpik: I thank you for exercising control, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I take a positive view of the conversations taking place. I believe that my earlier comments aroused such excitement that Members are conducting an informal referendum among themselves


and trying to predict the matters that I will raise. I thank hon. Members, especially Labour Members, for their evident support in word and deed.
My first point is about the importance of the democratic mandate. We have heard many times from the hon. Member for Worcester and his colleagues that there is a democratic mandate for his Bill and that that should be sufficient to carry it through the House.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (: I apologise if I anticipate a point that the hon. Gentleman will address later in his speech, but he referred to referendums to be held locally. Having read the new clause, I am not clear what is meant by "local" in this context. The relationship between democratic mandates and the definition of a locality is very important.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I shall return to it later, because one important aspect of holding local referendums would be the need to establish their geographical extent.
We have heard many times today—and in Committee—that there is an overwhelming feeling that the Bill should be passed and that fox hunting should be banned. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), who is unfortunately not in his place at the moment, claimed that 75 per cent. of the United Kingdom population support the Bill. [Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, who is present, but he appears to have promoted himself to the Front Bench and that is why I did not see him. His statistic means that 25 per cent. of the population, or 15 million people, are opposed to the Bill. Let us think about the consequences of that. Either we are to believe that those 15 million people support barbaric acts and should be prevented from doing so by the moral majority, or we could postulate that those 15 million people represent a sizeable—and, more to the point, reasonable—group of the British population with a genuine right to expect their views to be heard.

Mr. Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman pursues that argument any further, can he tell the House what precedent exists for national legislation on a national welfare issue to be the subject of local referendums? We have just had a debate about foxes crossing the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do about foxes that escape from a hunting area into a non-hunting area, when the hounds, the horses and, possibly, the huntsmen are unaware of the county, parish or district boundaries?

Mr. Öpik: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a key problem and I shall return to the question. I wish to correct him on one point, because it is not right to say that the Bill is a matter of national welfare. If we were debating whether to allow sick foxes to avail themselves of the national health service, it would be a welfare question, but the Bill is a moral issue. It is about the rights and wrongs of our treatment of animals. Anyone who believes that the Bill is about whether we should kill foxes is wildly off the mark. It is not about that because all three political parties established a long time ago that they accept the need for foxes to be culled; it is about process, about the most humane way of culling them. It is legitimate to have such a debate, and completely correct

for hon. Members to establish where to draw the arbitrary line between acceptable and unacceptable countryside pastimes and ways of controlling the fox population.
I regret that debate in the House and in Committee has deviated from the core question of process. There is a crying need for the public to participate in an informed debate that focuses on the question in hand: what processes should be regarded as acceptable and humane in a modern society? That question is the core of our request that local people's views be canvassed.
The key issue is local circumstances. Foxes are not negotiators, and there is no quid pro quo: they do not say, "If you don't hunt us in such and such a way, we won't eat your chickens." To a fox, a chicken coop is the equivalent of a run-through fast food takeaway. Foxes take the easiest route to feeding themselves and their dependants, and that includes taking chickens and lambs at will. I must thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole, the cheeky chappie, for sharing his wisdom and wit with an all-party group earlier today.

Mr. Spring: The hon. Gentleman is correct about the activities and behaviour of foxes. They take the lives of chickens or any sort of bird without eating what they have killed.

Mr. Öpik: Killer foxes, as anyone with countryside experience knows, might kill 18 chickens and take only one for food which, aside from being unfair to the British chicken population, is a great inconvenience to people who raise chickens for economic reasons.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I shall give way to the increasingly excited hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Corbyn: I am not excited, but puzzled. Many people, including me, keep chickens. It is incumbent on them to lock the chickens up at night so that foxes cannot eat them. That is a well-known fact, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address it.

Mr. Öpik: I must be cautious and not deviate too far, but I can already imagine that in a year or two a private Member's Bill will call for the liberation of chickens that have been locked up as a result of the draconian action proposed by the hon. Gentleman. More seriously, his remark underlines the philosophical inconsistency of the Bill. Why should chickens suffer because foxes are allowed to roam free? Chickens would undoubtedly prefer a happy free-range and unincarcerated life.
The assumption that chicken farmers can build effective cages ignores the fact that farmers do not think that they should construct monstrous cages around the countryside. Many hon. Members buy free-range eggs. If farmers choose to raise free-range chickens that can run happily around—

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the new clause deal with referendums or with chickens and foxes? Would chickens and foxes vote in the referendums?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is allowed to express himself. He is within the scope of the new clause; I would not allow him to discuss these matters otherwise.

Mr. Öpik: I have veered into a debate on chickens because hon. Members have raised some serious and


genuine concerns about the degree to which we should incarcerate chickens in the interest of fox freedom. I shall return to the point about a referendum in a moment. The questions that have been raised about chickens underline the massive list of unresolved questions that relate to the inconsistencies of the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has expressed deep concern about the activities of foxes in eating other animals. Is he calling for the extermination of all foxes or does he propose the continued breeding of foxes to enable hunts to go around hunting them? That is a matter of some concern to many of us.

Mr. Öpik: Once again, I believe that I am seeing the beginnings of an all-party committee that may like to pose the questions that I should like to have debated in referendums around the parishes. The sort of questions that the hon. Gentleman asks relate directly to the unresolved questions that have arisen in the past three months since the Standing Committee first sat.
You would be correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in preventing me from entering into a wider diatribe about the number of foxes that we should permit around the United Kingdom. I am here to debate not the rights and wrongs of having hundreds of thousands of foxes but a process by which local people can decide the issue for themselves.
I wish to make some progress. Let me move on to what may seem a subsidiary point but is in my view the central point with regard to local circumstances. We all know that local farms, especially small farms, are in crisis. They genuinely suffer significant economic hurt when a fox takes lambs, especially during the lambing season. Let us be in no doubt and let me say again for the record—I am sure that farmers who avidly read Hansard in their spare time will nod approvingly when they hear this—that foxes take lambs. They take lambs especially in hilly and inaccessible areas such as Montgomeryshire, but they take lambs throughout Britain. That is an economic cost to farmers. If we ignore the local circumstances that I describe, we must recognise that we are costing farmers money.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I call him my hon. Friend today. Is he aware of the detailed research by Cambac Associates in my constituency, a leading pig breeding research organisation in the United Kingdom, into the concept of outdoor farrowing, of which many people, especially Labour Members, are strongly in favour, believing it to be kinder to the pigs, although not all of us would necessarily agree with them? Is he aware that that organisation is rapidly coming to the conclusion that the more outdoor farrowing there is, the more piglets will be lost because foxes hang around the outdoor farrowing pens and eat the piglets as they are born?

Mr. Öpik: I was not aware of that, but I am all too aware of the costs to smallholders and sheep farmers. They have repeatedly shown me not only the cost in their balance books but the corpses of animals killed by foxes. Let us be in no doubt. There is an economic cost to preventing farmers from controlling foxes as they see fit.

Dr. Doug Naysmith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of further research at Bristol

university—an institution that he knows well—which concedes that foxes take the occasional lamb, but which, having studied the matter fully, concludes that farmers could protect their lambs by better husbandry and in many other ways, and that foxes play a small part in deaths of lambs?

Mr. Öpik: I have heard many figures and statistics bandied about in the past three months. One reason why I have joined the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in setting up the Middle Way Group is that we need to have a level playing field in these debates. Otherwise, my referendum proposals are pointless.

Dr. Naysmith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: So I welcome the contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made—

Dr. Naysmith: rose—

Mr. Öpik: Well, I—

Dr. Naysmith: The research was performed by Professor Stephen Harris—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Please be seated. The hon. Gentleman should not intervene unless he has the agreement of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—[Interruption.] Order. I think that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire sat down out of politeness.

Mr. Öpik: Indeed. Courtesy is my middle name. I apologise if I misled the hon. Gentleman into thinking that I wished to enter into a dialogue about statistics.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: Further to the point that my hon. Friend made about the research carried out by Bristol university, I should make the hon. Gentleman aware of the exact statistics on the number of sheep and lamb losses so that there is no confusion in his mind: 40 per cent. of lambs die through abortion or stillbirth; 30 per cent. through exposure and starvation; 20 per cent. through disease; 5 per cent. through congenital defects; and 5 per cent. through misadventure and predation, including by dogs and foxes. Clearly the amount lost through fox predation is small. Should not the farmers for whom the hon. Gentleman cares so dearly look at the other reasons why lambs die?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the new clause is about referendums.

Mr. Öpik: On this occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am more grateful for your intervention than words can say.
Let me steer a course back to the core of the debate. The 5 per cent. cited by the hon. Member for Worcester is one in 20, which is a large attrition rate in any industry, certainly in farming. His statistics and the fact that,


yet again, we are wrangling about numbers underline the need for a clear and agreed statistical base before we proceed with the proposals for referendums.
Farmers in Montgomeryshire would be grateful for a referendum because in some areas the attrition rate is between 10 and 15 per cent. It is simply not good enough to say that, because the national average—I am using the hon. Gentleman's figures—is 5 per cent. we need not worry about areas that are already on their knees owing to the rural crisis and the deep recession that they are experiencing, which will be exacerbated. I heard no suggestion of compensation for the 5 per cent. attrition rate.

Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. John Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I shall give way, but I hope that these will be brief interventions, as I want to bring my remarks to a close.

Mr. Lansley: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Local referendums would lead to distinctly different provision across the country, and some farmers would be adversely affected by not being able to have hunts on their land to relieve fallen stock and to keep down the fox population. Others would also be badly affected if the provisions of the Bill were imposed on their areas.

Mr. Öpik: I shall immediately give way to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and then move on.

Mr. Greenway: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I bring him back to the 15 million to which he referred? Is it his view that, in parts of the country—in his constituency as in mine—a substantial majority in some parishes are opposed to the Bill because it affects their livelihoods? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Öpik: Absolutely. I know that to be a fact. That is at the heart of why I propose that we should look forward to a referendum.
If the hon. Member for Worcester genuinely recognises the importance of having a democratic mandate to implement the proposals, he should recognise the importance of acknowledging the outcome of that democratic mandate in a local area or parish, even if it goes against his preferred outcome. Whatever our differences in the House, I do not for a moment question that the hon. Gentleman is committed to the democratic process—and if he is a committed democrat, he should be willing to stand by the outcome of local referendums.
As I have said, 15 million people—to use the statistics of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole—oppose the Bill. I speculate that they are concentrated in the countryside, and almost certainly in the areas where the predation problem is greatest. I am in no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people in Montgomeryshire, mid-Wales and many other areas oppose the Bill because they believe that it has a special impact on them. That is where the referendum comes in, which is why the hon. Member for Worcester should not

be afraid of the proposal. It will ultimately enable him to advance the arguments, which he believes to be so strong, at local level so that local people can decide whether they agree with them.
Let us be in no doubt that there is a debate to be had. The referendum is not a pointless or empty vessel, because so many of the questions were not even answered in Standing Committee. I asked numerous questions about the Bill's philosophical foundations, but they were not answered once. [Laughter.] I hear laughter from Labour Members, so I shall give an example of the sort of debate that has led me to believe that a public referendum is necessary.
On 17 December, there was an exchange between the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole and me. He was saying that there was evidence to show that mammals experience pain and that that could be shown statistically. I said:
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that similar data exist on fish?
The hon. Gentleman replied:
Fish are not the subject of the Bill. There is evidence that cold-blooded animals do not feel pain in the same way as mammals.
So far, so good. At that point, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said:
Fish are not mammals.
Then it all fell apart, because the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole said:
I realise that—at least they are not yet."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 17 December 1997; c. 39.]
I knew that I would be serving on the Committee for three months; the hon. Gentleman seemed to be thinking of a time frame approaching 500 million years. I fully acknowledge the wit and wisdom that he has contributed to the Committee, and I do not say that he has not made a valuable contribution to the debate, but I wanted to show to the public and to the House that we need to have a sensible debate where we do not talk in those terms.

Mr. Garnier: I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to be detained by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), but will he explain why he believes that the parish is the best unit in which to have the referendum? Other new clauses have been tabled, but not selected, which deal with districts and counties. Will the hon. Gentleman address his mind to those?

Mr. Öpik: I shall return to the problems highlighted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I shall first finish my point.
The core of the referendum debate would have to centre on finding a philosophical justification for banning hunting as described in the Bill, because it is a moral issue. The referendum might want to address four key matters. The first relates to suffering—to what extent we should prevent suffering in the animal kingdom and to what extent that objective is achieved by banning hunting with hounds.

Mr. Cawsey: I thank all hon. Members for their continual reference to Brigg and Goole, which has never been as famous as it is now. We like to call it the pig capital of Britain.
I wish to take up the important point on parishes which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Parts of north Lincolnshire are


unparished, so how would the new clause work in those circumstances? The hon. and learned Gentleman raised an important point and I seek an answer to that question.

Mr. Öpik: I shall return to the contribution made by the pig king of Britain, the porcine prince, but I shall first finish my point about which matters the referendum might address. The first relates to suffering. The second involves pest control; I shall not go into that subject in detail now, as it is not the purpose of the new clause to re-run that debate, but I have no doubt that there is a genuine, sensible and rational debate on pest control to be had with those affected by the Bill.
I imagine that, in the heart of Birmingham, most people would feel that pest control is not an issue, whereas in the heart of Wales it would be.

Mr. Paterson: I thank the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency borders mine, for giving way. This morning, without notice, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) doubted the veracity of a statement that I made about matters around Lake Vyrnwy in Montgomeryshire, concerning pest control and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I talked to Mr. Einian Evans—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to get away with that in an intervention.

Mr. Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the protocol on this matter? This morning, the hon. Member for Worcester intervened on a speech by the Minister. He gave no warning. He said that he doubted the veracity of what I said, which was a direct quotation from a constituent of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I did not intervene on the Minister, as I did not think at the time that the intervention of the hon. Member for Worcester was relevant to the new clause discussed by the Minister. I just wanted to clear my name—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a matter for debate, but the hon. Gentleman was seeking to get in on an intervention, and that is not the way to go about clearing his name, as he puts it.

Mr. Öpik: So much for pest control. I shall move on quickly.
The third question—that of natural processes—also came up in Committee. Is there a case for restoring natural processes in the countryside that necessitates banning certain types of fox control process?
The fourth question is the more general one of animal rights. That is so nebulous that we cannot start on it now, but I acknowledge—I hope that all hon. Members, whatever their opinions on the Bill, do so—that there is a direct link between the rights of animals, whether they be domestic, livestock, pets or wild, and the Bill. I have said—again I summarise—that there have not been proper or sufficiently deep debates on the subject during the Bill's passage.
Penultimately, I shall respond to two questions which have been asked: why new clause 21 chooses parishes as the geographical unit and whether the foxes recognise parish boundaries and abide by them.
To answer the first question, perhaps we should have given a wider spread of geographical areas, not just parishes. There is a strong case for suggesting that the areas covered by the Welsh assembly, the Scottish Parliament and—if there is one—a Northern Ireland assembly should be the geographical areas for a referendum. I fully accept that, and I acknowledge that there may be other boundaries, but I am advancing the principle that local groupings, local geographies, to a wider or narrower extent, should be entitled to take that decision.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to answer the question that I asked in an intervention, but, as he is moved the motion, perhaps I may explore what the new clause is intended precisely to mean. It appears to be intended to apply the disapplication of the Bill to parishes, but by reference to a local referendum. Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that the use of the adjective "local" simply implies that the referendum takes place within that parish, or is the locality referred to wider than the parish?

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman understands correctly that, naturally, the referendum must be within the same geographical boundaries as the enforcement or lifting of the ban. However, I accept that we might have drafted the new clause slightly better.
I move on to the bigger problem, which was raised earlier—whether foxes can respect borders. As in the previous debate, this is a difficult problem with our proposals. Foxes are not good geographers. In fact, in the previous debate I was thinking that, in these tense times in Northern Ireland, many people are debating the meaning of borders, and some of the greatest minds in Northern Irish politics have tried to debate what a border means. I include the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in that category.
That debate has taken decades, and I can hardly expect a fox to take a split-second decision, in the blink of an eye, on the location of a boundary crossing a field, especially when it is pursued by hounds. In fact, if there was a fox that was capable of doing that in Northern Ireland, not only would it be reasonable to ban the hunting of that fox, but that fox could reasonably expect to be appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My point casts no aspersions on the current Secretary of State, but underlines the difficulty of defining borders.
The issue is, to what extent is it meaningful to have a referendum in parish A, which bans fox hunting, and another in parish B, which does not? My only response is that there is likely to be a pattern of banning or protecting it. I expect that large parts of the countryside would vote against banning fox hunting, and that cities and urban areas would favour such a ban. There would also be grey areas, which would probably cause the most difficulty.

2 pm

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree that, if particular parishes were able to ban fox hunting, we might end up with a curious patchwork of some parishes banning fox hunting and others not. That might make it difficult to control foxes; therefore, it might have been better had the new clause been in respect of counties rather than parishes. None the


less, does the hon. Gentleman accept that a pack of hounds is always under the control of the master and that the meet would be held in such a place—[Laughter.] The fact that Labour Members are laughing reveals the depth of their ignorance about hunting. As a pack of hounds is constantly under control, it might be possible to confine it within a parish or district boundary.

Mr. Öpik: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point. Nevertheless, hounds occasionally run off and there is a genuine problem in relation to facilitating the administration of the boundaries.

Dan Norris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was puzzled to hear him refer to the need for a referendum. I cannot understand the need for that, so soon after a general election which produced such an overwhelming result. I certainly stood for Parliament on the basis of supporting a ban on hunting and consequently received the biggest increase in the Labour vote in the south-west.
I was also surprised to hear the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) say that the hounds were always under the control of the huntsmen. That is absolute nonsense. He should know that, only a week or two ago, exactly the opposite happened in his own county: the hounds ran out of control and many local people complained. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not read his own local newspapers.

Mr. Öpik: I have already addressed the hon. Gentleman's second point, and I have some sympathy with him. Of course hounds sometimes run off. They always come back eventually, but that does not mean that they will not impinge on the boundary of another parish. Having said that, they would have to be very close to a parish boundary for that to occur.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point on whether there was a mandate to such an extent that referendums were unnecessary, he may be shocked to learn that the Government did not win 659 seats—

Mr. Cawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I shall in a moment, as I am always intrigued to know what the porcine prince has to say.
Many constituencies simply did not support the Government's position. I remind the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) that the Government's position was not to ban fox hunting, but simply to allow a free vote on the subject, and, to their credit, they have facilitated the achievement of at least that early electoral promise. Whatever one may think about the hon. Member for Worcester, he has provided the Government with a genuine vehicle to fulfil that electoral requirement.

Mr. Cawsey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for yet a further description of my position in Brigg and Goole. Given that he has made a long speech with a wide context, can we assume that, like his speech, he supports the right to roam?

Mr. Öpik: I would be immediately ruled out of order if I were to embark on a diatribe or any other comment

on that point. In the interests of honesty, I believe that it should be based on voluntary arrangements, but that has nothing to do with the debate on the new clause.

Mr. David Maclean (: In respect of the new clause and the Government's position, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the article in Animal Action on 10 March, in which the Prime Minister said:
I will be there to vote against hunting. It ought to be banned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the new clause.

Mr. Eric Forth (: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The intervention had nothing to do with the new clause, Mr. Forth. I have made my case.

Mr. Öpik: I agree with the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole that the debate has been wide ranging. I see him racing off, presumably to set up an informal referendum of his own in the land of the pig.
We have had a pretty constructive debate on new clause 21. There have been sensible and reasonable contributions, which add value to the quality of the debate. That is a far cry from much of the debate in Standing Committee, which was lamentably destructive and went nowhere. Debate of the kind that we have had for the past 40 minutes should be continued through the referendum process which I propose.
I have acknowledged that there are some problems, but, if we accept the principle that we live in a democratic society and that fox hunting is a moral issue, there is every reason to move away from dictating what local people around the UK should believe and do, and for allowing them the responsibility to make that decision for themselves.
The middle way is concerned not with winning a victory, but with finding a solution. The hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Mid-Worcestershire and I are inviting contributions from all sides, including the hon. Member for Worcester and the League Against Cruel Sports, so that we can have the kind of referendum debate that I outlined. If we trust the public to participate directly in the debate, we will not have a slanging match or yah-boo politics. People will at long last be able to express their views on a fundamental matter of great concern to the countryside.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: I have read new clause 21 with interest, and listened with patience to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) trying to sell it to the House.
The new clause is neither well written nor technically competent, compared with a new clause written by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).

Mr. Luff: That is because I drafted new clause 21, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is a lawyer.

Mr. Foster: Usually, I would defend constituents of mine, but in this case I shall make an exception.
The new clause states that the hunt will pay for the organisation of the ballot, but it makes no reference to who will organise it. Should we assume that the hunt would organise the ballot, as well as pay for it? Imagine the question mark that would be placed over the democratic outcome of the referendum, if the hunt both organised and paid for it. There is no reference to whether it would be a secret ballot, whether there would be postal votes, how often the ballot would be taken, or for how long it would be binding. Because there are so many flaws in the new clause, I urge the House to vote against it.
We do not need to bother with local referendums. We already know what British public opinion supports.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman is replying to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). This morning, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) queried the activities of the Berwyn hounds around Lake Vyrnwy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must try some other time. He will not get away with that today.

Mr. Foster: We have always said, and no one who disagrees with our argument has denied, that overwhelmingly British public opinion is against hunting wild mammals with dogs.

Mr. Garnier: I wish to explore the hon. Gentleman's point a little further. I think that he said that, as a result of the general election, we are aware of overwhelming public opinion—[Interruption.] He claimed that the overwhelming majority of the United Kingdom population opposes hunting.
In the event of a referendum—I agree that there are difficulties with parish referendums—we may face the same situation as occurred with the Welsh assembly referendum. A tiny majority of people support the Welsh assembly, but that majority support was built up by county or constituency areas. Will the hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the evidence behind his assertion, which may be undermined if a referendum—rather than a general election—were conducted across the nation?

Mr. Foster: My understanding of British public opinion is derived not simply from the general election result but from the well-established opinion polling that has gone on.

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Foster: I should like to make a little more progress.

Mr. Gray: My point is directly related to the credence we give to polls. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent MORI polls that showed that 76 per cent. of people favour the return of the death penalty, and 55 per cent. believe that gays should not have the same rights as

heterosexuals? Does the hon. Gentleman subscribe to those views? Does he believe, therefore, that MORI works?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That point is a little wide.

Mr. Foster: My initial response is that, if the hon. Gentleman is so concerned, he should introduce a private Member's Bill on the subject.
I must address the point about findings regarding countryside issues, particularly with reference to hunting with dogs. I refer to an article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph—I confess that I occasionally read that newspaper, usually to find out whether Quentin Letts has said anything nice about me, although I am yet to find such an article—entitled "Propaganda victory for country march". I am sure that Conservative Members will agree that they may have scored a propaganda victory—I see a few nods of agreement from the other side. Respondents were asked about new developments in rural areas and existing towns and cities. An overwhelming number of people—some 76 per cent.—said that housing should be built on brown-field sites or in towns and cities.

Mr. Lansley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that trading statistics from national opinion polls is not relevant to this new clause? Whatever its difficulties might be in practice, the new clause is designed to allow the expression of opinion in local areas. The hon. Gentleman should address the question of the balance of opinion in areas where hunts take place.

Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come to that point very shortly.

Mr. Savidge: rose—

Mr. Foster: I shall give way one last time.

Mr. Savidge: On the subject of expressions of overwhelming public opinion, has my hon. Friend noticed that the two causes at which the Tories have directed their most prolonged and determined efforts at frustrating public opinion—hunting with hounds and poverty pay—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are considering only the clause before us. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss any other matter.

Mr. Foster: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important that we take note of referendum results, because at present they provide the only evidence available of British public opinion in both rural and urban areas.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I said that I have taken my last intervention.
I am pleased to see the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on this proposed new clause. It would appear that he has had a sudden conversion to the benefits of a referendum. The House might be interested to learn that the Worcester Referendum Society conducted a referendum in his


constituency in 1993. That opinion poll found that some 72 per cent. of people within the old city boundary wanted to see a ban on fox hunting.
Hon. Members will retort that that includes the city of Worcester, so it is bound to be urban-dominated. However, if we take a referendum that looks at just the rural parts—the same rural parts that gave the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire the justification for moving his seat—[Interruption.] It is fair to point out that, when the hon. Gentleman moved his seat, he did so on the basis that a large proportion of his votes went to a new boundary—the Wychavon aspect of the old city of Worcester boundary. Of the 50.2 per cent. who took part in the referendum, 62.2 per cent. were in favour of a ban on hunting, while 32 per cent. wanted hunting to continue.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I said that I will allow no more interventions.
A referendum in a rural area where hunts take place came up with that result, yet the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire professes to be pro-hunt. Conservative Members should listen to voters and the results of referendums, and take note of public opinion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that he will not give way.

Mr. Foster: I am pleased to see Conservative Members' conversion to referendums as an indication of what people in rural areas want. A majority of two to one support a ban on hunting, and I look forward to having the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire with us the next time we walk through the Lobby.

Mr. Peter Luff: Before your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had thought that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was going to give way. Had he done so, I would have said that he was entirely right about that referendum.
The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he often misses out other bits of the truth that do not suit him. That referendum was organised by some passionate anti-Europeans who sought to secure evidence for their position against Europe. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be bound by the outcome of that aspect of the referendum, he should look at the other questions asked in the referendum, and decide whether he is bound by those as well. It was a multi-question referendum on a range of issues, although I concede that the figures he quoted were accurate.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that referendums are dangerous when the facts are not honestly put before the public? In the new clause that was not selected, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was suggesting a measure that would have led to the extermination rather than the control of foxes. If the public had to choose between those two, they would have an entirely different opinion.

Mr. Luff: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
My motive in tabling this new clause was to encourage at parish council level the informed debate which has conspicuously failed to take place nationally. The debate has been dominated by those with money—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the League Against Cruel Sports—which have spent a fortune deceiving people about the reality of hunting. Referendums conducted locally would lead to intelligent and informed debate between those who know and trust each other, and would lead to some facts emerging, rather than to blind prejudice.

Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the League Against Cruel Sports and other organisations that oppose hunting have an important role to play in setting out both sides of the argument?

Mr. Luff: Yes. I hope that, if the Middle Way Group's proposals succeed, we shall listen carefully to what the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports have to say. I hope that they will be prepared to engage in that intelligent debate.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) would not give way to many Conservative Members who sought to intervene to answer some of the points that he was making.
Does my hon. Friend agree that what was interesting about the 300,000 people who joined the countryside march was that almost every banner and placard showed their strong opposition to the view of the hon. Member for Worcester? The Labour party used to believe that it represented minority rights. Even if the hon. Gentleman is right—I do not agree with him—that he represents the majority, has not the Labour party abandoned its traditions?

Mr. Luff: I entirely agree. Minorities have rights, too—something the supporters of the Bill often choose to ignore. At a local level, we could have an intelligent debate. If a parish voted against hunting, all well and good. If it voted for it, that would be good also, but we should give people that choice.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am slightly concerned by my hon. Friend's line of argument. It is no better if a referendum is held in a confined area—whether that is a parish or a county—if the rights of law-abiding, intelligent people with a perfect understanding of moral issues are rubbed out by the tyranny of the majority. Surely that is what is so offensive about the Bill—it seeks to assert a moral superiority over ordinary, decent people. I do not believe that my hon. Friend's new clause would help to get that message across.

Mr. Luff: I make no secret of the fact that I do not wish the Bill as it stands to succeed, but the House must proceed—even now, at the eleventh hour—on the basis that there is a chance that it could scrape through to the other place. If that is the case, we must make sure that it is as unexceptionable and inoffensive as possible.
I dislike referendums, and I stand by the things I said in response to the referendum alluded to by the hon. Member for Worcester. I do not like them in principle, but there have to be exceptions to rules. Desperate diseases


sometimes call for desperate remedies, and that is the situation we are in. I stand with Edmund Burke's famous remarks to the electors of Bristol. He said, in respect of constituents and their representatives, that their wishes
ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living…Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
That goes to the heart of the debate and the new clause.
I had harsh words for the hon. Member for Worcester last week, as some of his remarks were intemperate, but this week he has contributed helpfully to the debate. I am grateful to him for that, and for the spirit in which he has done so. However, he once again made great play of the use of opinion polls. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) made the obvious point that he picks and chooses his opinion polls, and we do not have the right to do that. The hon. Gentleman refused to give an answer on capital punishment. If this House felt bound by opinion polls, it would vote to reintroduce capital punishment—but it has not done so.
We need an opinion poll that really counts—not one in which a complete stranger with a clip board walks up to you in the street and asks whether you are in favour of killing little furry animals. We need an opinion poll where voters are given the chance to express their opinion on a mature and anonymous basis.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when one is approached by a person with a clipboard, one may not hear the question precisely?

Mr. Cawsey: Is this why the Tories lost the election?

Mr. St. Aubyn: Labour Members would do well to listen to what is being said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members are listening to the debate. If they want to engage in another conversation, they should leave the Chamber. I ask the hon. Gentleman to make his intervention brief.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a person is asked if he wants to ban the thing he is against, he might pause before agreeing just because he disapproves of it?

Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend is right. The House should listen to opinion polls—we are right to do so. But they should be just one of the issues that we should bear in mind in reaching a judgment on an issue. The new clause seeks a better way of reaching a judgment at local level.
I fully concede to the supporters of the Bill that most people in this country are probably vaguely uncomfortable about the principle of hunting. That vague discomfort manifests itself in the opinion polls. A local referendum conducted at parish level would produce a different result. Typically, a small minority who were passionately against hunting would express that view at the ballot box, a much

larger group but still a minority who were passionately in favour of hunting would support that view, and a rather larger group would stay at home.

Kate Hoey: May I ask my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend!"] The hon. Gentleman and I are associated in an all-party group on the issue. Many people feel that, by supporting the Bill, they will save the fox. Does he agree that that is the greatest fallacy of the Bill, and that, in fact, we will see greater—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) will not respond to that question, because we are talking not about the Bill in its entirety but about a new clause.

Mr. Luff: I will not respond, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I respect your ruling. The advantage of local referendums at parish council level, as the new clause suggests, would be to force people to confront the reality in a harsh way. They would be not merely responding to opinion polls in the street, but casting a vote in private and in response to a campaign of fact. The sort of issue that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) raised would feature large in the debate that led up to a referendum, so it would make for better decision making.

Mr. Lansley: When my hon. Friend reflects on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), will he, as the author of the new clause, observe that, at the moment, it disapplies the provisions? In truth, it might be better to present the question to people in terms of whether they want to ban other people from engaging in something that they had previously engaged in legitimately. Although the new clause has merits, it is the other way around, and proposes the disapplication of a general law.

Mr. Luff: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, although I somehow doubt whether, if I had drafted the new clause as he recommends, it would have been acceptable to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to Madam Speaker, as it would have been seen to go against the spirit of the Bill. I would be happy to draft such an amendment, because I do not agree with the approach adopted by the hon. Member for Worcester, but I doubt whether a clause drafted as my hon. Friend suggests would have been acceptable to the Chair.

Mr. Garnier: I agree that the way in which my hon. Friend's new clause has been drafted is to some extent defective. I would draw to his attention my new clause 39, which unfortunately has not been selected for debate, but which might deal with some of the problems that he and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) are facing. My new clause sets out a number of detailed points that are not dealt with in his, and it would have been preferable if he had signed up to my new clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have said, I will not allow discussion on new clauses that have not even been selected.

Mr. Luff: I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Bill is to be reported, I hope that it will be with new clause 21 as a part of it and that in another place the


defects in the new clause that probably do exist, could be ironed out and the clause improved. I happen to agree with my hon. and learned Friend that his new clause is probably preferable in many ways.

Mr. Hawkins: In my hon. Friend's proposals for local referendums, does he agree that one of the concerns that constituents have expressed to me could still be a danger? There is a concern that the more extreme so-called animal rights organisations have, in attempting to obtain evidence to bolster the side of the argument of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) sought to intimidate people to sign up to petitions. I have had complaints about the heavy-handed tactics used by people with clipboards in the street to put people under pressure to sign petitions that they have not wished to sign, but have signed to get away from the animal rights extremists.

Mr. Luff: We often hear allegations from the supporters of the Bill that those who support hunting use heavy-handed tactics. Regrettably, in my experience the majority of the heavy-handed tactics have come from its supporters, which makes me pause to think about the merits of the new clause. It may well be that such tactics would be employed in the debate before the referendums, but I hope that, typically in country areas where the debates would take place, that would not be the case.

Mr. McNamara: How about those threatened with losing their tied cottages?

Mr. Luff: That is the oldest red herring—it is totally untrue, and I will not be dragged down that path.
I was pleased to read of the Prime Minister's strong support for the principle of referenda at local level, and I should have thought that he would have been in the House today to vote, but I expect that he is at Chequers, his tied cottage.

Mr. Colvin: I wish that my hon. Friend would get his grammar right. "Referendum" is a gerundive, and the plural is "referendums", not "referenda".

Mr. Luff: I think that common usage has changed.
In his interesting pamphlet, "Leading the Way: A new vision for local government", the Prime Minister says:
it is not just representative democracy that needs to be strengthened. We also need to look at other democratic initiatives that will strengthen community leadership.
He talks about what councils can do to achieve that, and says:
And the local referendum could become part and parcel of a council's tool kit to help it exercise its leadership function.
One does not have to share Conservative Members' reservations on referendums to know that that is what the Labour party seems to be committed to. The Prime Minister was clearly thinking about county and district councils, but I think that the rules—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 20 March.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill was carried on Second Reading by a very substantial majority, which in our view reflects the feeling in the country. Given that overwhelming majority, is there any protection against the parliamentary vandalism that we have seen throughout the Bill's consideration that could enable it to go through Parliament? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time, and he knows the procedures of the House. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the three days of debate on the Bill. I have found our discussions very informative; I have learnt a great deal more about the issue, and I want to make points that deserve to be heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 March.

ELECTIONS (VISUALLY IMPAIRED VOTERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 March.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 March.

WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

SCHOOL ABSENTEEISM BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Not moved.

COMPANIES (MILLENNIUM COMPUTER COMPLIANCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 March.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Harry Barnes: To give the Government time to reflect, Friday 3 July, Sir.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

REFORM OF QUARANTINE REGULATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 March.

PROHIBITION OF BULL BARS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 March.

VOLUNTARY PERSONAL SECURITY CARDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 March.

Waste Minimisation Bill [Money]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Waste Minimisation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of my colleagues has received a notice to attend a Standing Committee to consider the Bill next Wednesday. I understand that, in order for a private Member's Bill to go to into Committee, its money resolution must first be passed. How can Members be invited to a Committee next week, before the House has even considered the money resolution? That strikes me as premature, to say the least.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): rose—

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Further to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a terrible habit of interrupting the Chair. He should not do that.
I have been the Chairman of a Standing Committee, and I know that it often happens that Members are invited, subject to any decision that will be made in the House. If the decision was negative, the meeting would be cancelled.

Mr. Hawkins: I apologise for rising too soon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to that point of order, I am one of those hon. Members who received notification about the Committee. I wanted to let you know that I was in the position to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am pleased to hear it.

Mr. Forth: We are considering a money resolution in support of a private Member's Bill. It is difficult to assess the merits of the case if a Bill has not received a proper Second Reading and has gone through on the nod.
It is perfectly acceptable for private Members' Bills to receive a Second Reading on the nod, but it leaves us at a disadvantage in subsequent stages, because we are unaware of the rationale behind the Bill and of the thrust of its contents. That will be a considerable handicap to us today in giving proper and detailed consideration to the money resolution, although it seems that the Bill could have considerable spending implications.
I remember, as no doubt will my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), that in the good old days private Members' Bills were supposed not to carry significant spending implications. Recently, however, we have had a series of examples of private Members' Bills—they may be Government handouts for all I know—with considerable spending implications and requiring money resolutions before going into Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: It is certainly true that, in the past, private Members' Bills were normally expected to be so worded as not to require money resolutions. It is very unusual, and a more modern structure, for them to require money resolutions. When that is the case, one is led to believe that those Bills are not so much private Members' Bills as Government-sponsored Bills under the name of a private Member.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend confirms what I suspected: that this is in effect a handout Bill, as we call them in the trade, which a private Member has been persuaded to take up. That has important implications, one of which is this resolution.
It is relevant, although not crucial, that not many of the Bill's numerous sponsors are present today. It seems odd that hon. Members are prepared to sponsor Bills, perhaps because they sound attractive, but are mysteriously absent at a crucial stage of their progress. I will let that point go for the moment, because it is not relevant. We will see who is here when we vote on the issue, instead of speculating now.
The wording of the motion left me somewhat puzzled, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position. The motion contains the words:
it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided.

It always makes me suspicious when I read the words "any increase", because that is our old friend the blank cheque. We are being asked to approve any expenditure. That might not be too difficult to accept if the Bill were a Bill in the modern sense, with a statement of financial implications attached. I look in vain for such a statement in the Bill. All it says under "Money" is this:
There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any increase attributable to any provision of this Act".
In other words, we receive no guidance whatever about the expenditure implications of the Bill. If that is added to the fact that we have had no Second Reading debate, I am sure my hon. Friends will be as anxious as I am about the possible spending implications of the Bill and, therefore, about the money resolution before us.
It seems that a certain slackness is entering the proceedings of the House, because we are being expected to approve the motion and other motions on the Order Paper that carry the same implications—as I hope to point out when we reach them. We are being asked, as a House of Commons responsible to the electorate for the raising of moneys through taxes and the expenditure of taxpayers' moneys, to approve of unspecified expenditure.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again, but I wish to point out that the House acted, some years ago, to ensure that Bills contained a paragraph on finance in the introduction, so that the House would know the likely financial cost of legislation. It seems strange, when the House has introduced that change, to have a retrogressive Bill that does not include such a paragraph—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.

Sir Peter Emery: I shall make my point on a point of order, if you prefer, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than that.

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My ruling is that interventions must be brief. I gave the right hon. Gentleman a lot of leeway and it is not on for him to say that he will use a point of order to make his point.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not correct to point out the normal procedure of the House so that we all understand it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not need to reply to the right hon. Gentleman, because he knows the procedure of the House and I was addressing my remarks to him.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, who makes an important point. I believe that we are witnessing a change in the nature of private Members' Bills. That is happening because hon. Members—legitimately—are accepting Bills from Government Departments. I have no difficulty with the principle of that, because hon. Members are free to adopt whatever subject they choose for a Bill if they are


fortunate enough to come high enough in the ballot. However, as my right hon. Friend emphasised, if, in the process, we lose the discipline that the House has sought to apply to Government Bills—that the financial implications should be clearly laid out—we are entitled to be more suspicious of what is laid before us.
If that is complicated by the fact that we have not had the benefit of a Second Reading debate and therefore do not know in detail what is going on, we are entitled to be doubly suspicious. However, holding this short debate allows us to explore the implications of the Bill and the expenditure that would arise from it, and we will be better able to judge it.
I shall discuss the Bill briefly, because my colleagues want to contribute. The Bill gives me little encouragement or confidence on the issues that I have mentioned—quite the reverse. Clause 1(1) deals with
minimising the quantities of controlled waste, or controlled waste of any description, generated in its area.
It authorises authorities to
do, or arrange for the doing of, or contribute towards the expenses of the doing of, anything which in its opinion is necessary or expedient for the purpose".
My reading is that authorities would be given unlimited scope to interpret what minimisation of waste generation means and to come up with ideas for implementing that aim. However, the words "waste", "minimise" and "generation", all of which are crucial to understanding the meaning of the Bill, have not been satisfactorily defined. The Bill seems to authorise authorities to do anything they see fit to fulfil its broad aim, and that is underpinned by the financial authority of the money resolution.
If ever there was a vehicle for unlimited expenditure, this Bill must be it. The Bill's aims are not adequately defined and although expenditure to underpin them has been requested, its effects have not been explained satisfactorily.

Angela Smith: I am the Bill's promoter. The right hon. Gentleman said that I was not present, but I am. The Bill is not a handout from the Government Whips; I took it over from the former hon. Member for Beckenham, who is no longer a Member of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill's aims are broad. Will he not acknowledge that they are narrow and specific, and that the Bill describes in detail what it is designed to bring about?

Mr. Forth: No, I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. I am delighted that she is here, and apologise if I said that she was not. I hope that I said that few of the Bill's sponsors were here to support it; if I did not, that is what I meant to say. I of course acknowledge that she has taken the trouble to attend, and hope that she speaks in support of the money resolution.
However, I cannot agree with the hon. Lady, because, the phrase
minimise the generation of waste
is not specific, but extraordinarily general, and unconstrained. The Bill does not refer to domestic or industrial waste, define the generation of domestic or

business wastes, or give us any guidance as to whether the aim is minimisation to zero. I cannot agree that the Bill's specificity gives us comfort. I am arguing the opposite.
Sensibly, the Bill requires an authority to
consult about the proposal every other relevant authority whose area includes all or part of the area of the first authority.
In this modern era of consultation, that sounds not only sensible, but highly desirable. However, it carries two implications that require explanation. First, the act of consultation is not cost free, as my party is about to find out in its enthusiasm for it. We all know that consultation by any body, whether wide or relatively narrow, is an expensive process. So already the Bill carries implications of costs—the costs of consultation—which I believe are undefined and unlimited, although I accept that the Bill's reference to "every other relevant authority" is something of a constraint. However, that raises another question.
Is there any implication of a veto? If some of those other authorities say, "What you propose to do to minimise the generation of waste in your area is unacceptable to us and carries with it difficulties," that could render the Bill nugatory. We need some sort of explanation of the nature of the consultation process and whether it carries with it any implication of an ability of another authority in some way to veto what the originating authority proposes to do.
I want to give my hon. Friends a chance to speak, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I have tried to illustrate that, as things stand, the Bill and the money resolution contain inadequate explanations to support the unconstrained and unlimited wording of the money resolution. Unless I am eventually much better persuaded than I am now, I shall be unable to support the money resolution.

r. Nick St. Aubyn: I did not intend to speak on the money resolution, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has made the important point that it could become a blank cheque. It is worrying that we should be asked to support a Bill that may become a blank cheque, especially when I consider the problems of waste in the area that I represent in Surrey.
There is tremendous pressure on Surrey from developers and waste disposal companies to provide more waste facilities. Where, for example, sand has been extracted for commercial use, we find waste companies coming in; yet more and heavier lorries drive along our country lanes to dump waste in our part of Surrey—something for which the infrastructure and roads were not designed.
In Shamley Green—a delightful village in my constituency—we are fighting a tough battle against one firm. First, it said that it wanted to increase its waste disposal activities. Then, when it could not get that past the local authority, it said that it wanted to extract more sand from a pit that has been disused for a decade.
If we sign a blank cheque for waste minimisation, moneys could come forward from some source that would make financially viable waste disposal schemes that would not otherwise be financially viable. We have found, to our bitter cost, that the planning system on its own is not capable of stopping waste schemes that we definitely oppose.
There is another example in Seale—another village in my constituency. The matter went to appeal a year ago—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about the money resolution. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about the principle of the Bill. He should talk about the money resolution.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The thrust of my point is that, if we provide more money for what sounds like a good cause—waste minimisation—we may unintentionally provide incentives to waste disposal companies to make more of a nuisance of themselves in parts of the world where we are fighting hard to restrict their activities.
I notice that the intention is that local authorities should find the money. It is deeply ironic that the Bill has the Government's support, as they well know that, in the most recent revenue settlement, our areas—and all the shire areas—suffered a real loss. More than £100 million was shifted from the shire counties to the metropolitan areas. Where on earth will the shire counties find money for a waste minimisation system? We are under great pressure.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises a point that I neglected to raise. The implications are clear: the taxpayer will have to pay an unlimited amount to local authorities; local authorities will have to raise more money to pay for what they are doing; or local authorities will have to reprioritise their expenditure under existing powers, to deliver the Bill's aims. It can be only one of those three, and we do not know which one it will be.

Mr. St. Aubyn: In Surrey, the council tax has increased by more than 10 per cent. because of the Government's change in its budget; at the same time, we have had to enforce cuts in social services to meet the Government's targets for increased spending on education. The idea that Surrey will have to find extra money for waste minimisation is appalling. If the Government's intention is that the money should be found by the Treasury, why does the Bill say that the money will be spent by the local authority, without making it clear from where the money will come?
I am concerned about the Bill. I respect the point that has been made, but it is wrong for such a Bill to be introduced by the mechanism of a private Member's Bill, as these should be, by and large, uncontroversial measures. We have already seen today the waste of parliamentary time that can come from controversial private Members' Bills. I am afraid that it is hard to summon the confidence that the Bill requires of us to lend it our support.

Angela Smith: The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said that private Members' Bills should be uncontroversial. I remind him that this is an uncontroversial Bill which has all-party support. Indeed, it was first brought before the House by the previous Member for Beckenham, who is no longer in the House.
Opposition Members are making heavy weather of the Bill, based on a misunderstanding of what it is about. It is enabling legislation for local authorities to work on waste minimisation. Local authorities are not forced to spend money.
The Bill should be examined fully in Committee and then brought before the House in the proper way. I urge hon. Members to support the money resolution so that the Bill can be examined in Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: I find the hon. Lady's remarks completely unconvincing. She said, "This isn't going to cost anybody anything." If that is the case, why the devil is there a money resolution? It must be there for some purpose. That is why Opposition Members are highly suspicious. Perhaps the hon. Lady will be permitted to speak again to explain. I am highly suspicious of a money resolution on a private Member's Bill anyway. That is not the way in which things should be done.
If the proposal is not going to cost anything, we do not need a money resolution. When the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), cannot give us a positive explanation about why the money resolution is necessary, I am not only suspicious, but I find myself wanting to ensure that we do not pass it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I am amazed to find that parts of the Conservative Opposition do not think that waste minimisation is a desirable end, especially as the Bill is a modest measure supported, I thought until today, by all parties. It is clearly not supported by the Conservative party.
I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is against the promotion of waste minimisation as, when he was a member of the Conservative Government, they were anxious to pursue recycling and waste minimisation policies, although they were bad at coming up with results.

Mr. Forth: Will the Minister give way?

Angela Eagle: No.
The purpose of the resolution is to authorise the creation of a charge on public funds for the Bill. The Bill is narrow in scope and concerns promoting waste minimisation activities. Local authorities, as the organisations that collect domestic waste, might want to introduce educative processes to show people who live in their area how to recycle waste properly. The Bill merely enables that to happen.
Without what is a modest money resolution, the Bill would have no effect, which is why the resolution is before the House today. Conservative Members are much too paranoid about the effects of public expenditure. The measure duly authorises—merely enables—money to be used for a narrow purpose; the decision has not been taken. As Conservative Members know only too well, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give an open-ended commitment to funding in a private Member's Bill. Conservative Members should stop exaggerating,


come down to earth and treat the Bill as the modest, all-party—as I thought—measure that it is. I am interested to learn from today's debate that the Conservative Opposition seem to be against recycling.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 3.

Division No. 212]
[3.1 pm


AYES


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Arbuthnot, James
Lepper, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Brake, Tom
McCabe, Steve


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
McFall, John


Caplin, Ivor
McIsaac, Shona


Casale, Roger
McNulty, Tony


Caton, Martin
McWilliam, John


Cawsey, Ian
Mallaber, Judy


Coffey, Ms Ann
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Cooper, Yvette
Merron, Gillian


Cranston, Ross
Morley, Elliot


Dobbin, Jim
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Dowd, Jim
Norris, Dan


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Pike, Peter L


Gardiner, Barry
Prosser, Gwyn


Gerrard, Neil
Rooker, Jeff


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Savidge, Malcolm


Godman, Norman A
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Spellar, John


Heald, Oliver
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Hill, Keith
Timms, Stephen


Hoey, Kate
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Vis, Dr Rudi


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Mr. Kevin Hughes and



Ms Bridget Prentice.




NOES


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mr. Edward Leigh and


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Paper Pulp Spreading (Agricultural Land)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Helen Jackson: I have chosen the right day for my Adjournment debate, which addresses the countryside and waste. We have had quite a Friday.
I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight an important issue for the countryside in my constituency. I remind the House that the countryside north of Sheffield is particularly beautiful, with large numbers of streams, fields, upland areas, ancient ways, footpaths and dry stone walls. It is used by large numbers of walkers and others for their leisure interests. The area is important both for its agriculture and for the people who live in my constituency.
The livestock farmers in that part of the countryside are having an extremely difficult time following the Government's mismanagement of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis in the past few years. The fall in milk prices from 25p a litre to 18p a litre has also had a serious effect.
The difficulties being faced by the farmers contrast with the position of the largest landowner-farmer, who spreads his land with paper pulp waste on a monopoly contract that he has had for many years with the local paper mill. The proceeds have enabled him to buy up farms around my constituency at an accelerating rate as they come on to the market.
Like many people in the constituency, I am concerned that, in this upland countryside area, it seems that the only way to make a living is to use the land as a vast waste disposal site. The paper comes from the Fort James paper mill at Oughtibridge, which is a long-established plant in the constituency. It is engaged in recycling, and produces 40,000 tonnes of paper tissue from 55,000 tonnes of recycled material. In the process, it produces 45,000 tonnes of a grey, soggy paper pulp mass, which is made up of 15,000 tonnes of solids and 40,000 tonnes of water. For years, that substance has been spread over the neighbouring farmland and uplands.
There is nothing wrong in principle with paper waste being used as an organic substance in composting schemes or spread on the land for the benefit of agriculture and the land itself. Where land is acidic, the elements of chalk in the paper pulp waste can have a beneficial effect. However, the waste disposal operation in my constituency has shortcomings that the Government should address. I hope that this debate will help to strengthen the guidelines that the Government are considering.
As the waste substance is spread, it is visually obtrusive. Its greyish-bluish colour is clearly noticeable when it is spread on green fields. The difficulty is that, when it is spread in large quantities, so that it is several inches deep, it coagulates into grey lumps around the edges, and remains like that for several weeks and possibly months, before the grass grows through.
The process leads to the presence of heavy lorries on the narrow country lanes in the area. There is significant change, and even damage, to the ecology and biodiversity of the upland areas. When I first went to live there, there were many skylarks, lapwings, harebells in the autumn, and


a wide variety of other wild flowers and birds. That is no longer the case. There has been a significant loss of grassy semi-moorland uplands. Many stone walls and gateposts have been destroyed or removed to enable the operation to take place.
The concerns go further. Not enough is known about the long-term effect of such intensive treatment on the soil. I am not sure whether sufficient research has been carried out into the long-term effects of traces of chemicals from the ink or other elements that might be in the paper pulp waste and might affect the quality of the grassland for grazing. I am concerned about whether enough is known about the content of the water element, which is substantial, and its effect on groundwater reserves in the area.
One of my constituents described how the process has affected her. Her house is at the back of fields that have been spread with the grey substance. She described how it has seeped on to her garden, and how her asthma has been exacerbated, because the substance remains dry and powdery for many weeks without being ploughed in. Nothing grew for months on the land at the back of her house. Since the walls, hedges and trees dividing the four fields were uprooted when the paper waste was spread, the whole aspect of the landscape has changed dramatically. There were hares and many birds in the area, but she says that they are no longer to be seen.
I am pleased that this debate has been welcomed by the local branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Peak District national park, the local authorities, the Sheffield Wildlife Trust and, perhaps most importantly, many local conservation groups. We are grateful for the meeting we had with the Minister and her officials earlier this morning. We hope that, as a result of the debate, our concerns will be incorporated in the forthcoming consultation paper on the wider effect of waste spreading. We look forward to reading that document when it is published.
The current legal framework for this type of waste disposal is contained in the waste licensing system established under the European Community framework directive on waste, which, in article 11, exempts from waste regulation and planning control waste spreading that is deemed "agricultural improvement". I believe that those words are defined insufficiently. First, the term "improvement", as applied to the countryside in my constituency, is clearly uncertain and totally inadequate. Secondly, the onus must be on the operator to show, without question, that his purpose is agricultural rather than waste disposal. If the purpose is actually waste disposal, it opens the operation to landfill tax and other issues.
Moreover, the requirements subsequently set out in section 7 of schedule 3 of the regulations must be more specific. Although they mention the rate of spread, that should be spelled out in terms of, first, tonnage per acre or hectare; secondly, the depth of spread and the frequency with which it is advisable to spread to that depth in a particular area; and, thirdly, the manner and the time within which waste should be ploughed into the soil. If those specifications are made more detailed, more detailed recording will be required on the part of the paper industry and the operators to ensure that the regulators—in this case, the Environment Agency—are aware of exactly what is proposed, where, how much and when.
I have been informed by the Environment Agency that the operator at present provides the minimum of information: simply saying who he is and stating that a

rough amount of paper pulp waste is to be distributed on various farms in the area at a frequency of about two or three years. That is nothing like enough detail. It does not allow the Environment Agency or the planning authority to monitor adequately, and where necessary to take samples of, the substance to ensure that operations are being conducted in accordance with the regulations.
I also urge the Minister to make it absolutely clear that it makes no difference to the requirements in the regulations whether the operator spreads on his or someone else's land. If the process is so beneficial to the land, I am surprised that other farms in the area do not desperately want the substance spread on their land. At present, the landowner spreads the waste on his own land.
In addition to those specific suggestions, I wish to make some general points. The first is about soil quality. Hon. Members may know that I spent many years in the former Parliament working on water quality and on how sustaining the water cycle makes quality water easily available to us all. After water, soil is probably the most important environmental element on our planet, because it provides us with food, whether it is grown or comes from the animals that graze on it. Future generations will need to focus on and monitor much more closely the quality of soil across all aspects of agriculture, including waste spreading, to make absolutely sure that the food we derive from soil is safe for consumption.
Secondly, it is important that the issues arising from waste spreading on land are given a national framework. Although I have raised this Adjournment debate in the context of a constituency issue, it is important that the guidelines are put in a national framework.
Thirdly, it is important that local people are consulted on all aspects of the environment that affect the countryside. I have mentioned the strength of the conservation groups in my constituency, and I pay tribute to how they keep a watching brief on the welfare of the countryside in their area. That needs to be recognised nationally and locally to ensure that local people have a say and are asked what the processes and operations mean to them, because they are the people who live cheek by jowl with those operations.
Finally, I urge that a partnership approach be taken to countryside issues. I am appalled that the Conservative party has treated the countryside in such a divisive way in the past few weeks. At every turn, on issues that could have brought people together, Conservative Members have attempted to be divisive. I do not approach this issue in a divisive way. Ultimately, responsibility for the country must be shared between Government and business, and between landowners and conservation groups. Unless we work together to protect our countryside, we shall never succeed in caring for it and maintaining its beauty and use for relaxation.
I am grateful for this debate, and I call on the Government to back a partnership approach to deal with the spreading of paper pulp waste.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on raising some important points about the recovery of waste by landspreading.
My hon. Friend focused on the spreading of waste paper sludge in the Bradfield area of her constituency. It is unfortunate, but I cannot comment on the incidents that we have heard about today, or on any other landspreading case. There is a good reason for that: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in deciding waste management licensing appeals. As a result, I cannot comment on any individual case that could become the subject of one of those appeals. However, there is much that I can say, and I hope that I can reassure her about the important issues that she has raised today.
My hon. Friend understandably focused on the disadvantages of landspreading, which I fully recognise. There is no doubt that the indiscriminate landspreading of wastes can sometimes cause environmental problems. For example, it can lead to soil damage, water pollution and problems with odour or visual impact. It is vital that we are aware of these risks, and that effective measures are taken to deal with them. I will say more about that in a moment.
We must not lose sight of the fact that there are also advantages to landspreading. Spreading of wastes on land can provide valuable nutrients—and so reduce the need for chemical fertilisers—improve soil condition and structure, and reduce the amount of waste which goes for disposal in landfill sites. Although Conservative Members have decided, after the last debate, that they are against recycling, we believe that recycling and the re-use of wastes where possible is a good thing, as long as it is done in a controlled way which does not affect either human or animal health.
Properly controlled landspreading can be a good way of getting an environmental benefit from wastes which would otherwise be disposed of. Using wastes to provide environmental benefit is a practice which, in the interests of sustainable development, it must be sensible to encourage. It is, of course, best not to produce waste at all. However, the production of waste is, unfortunately, a fact of life. Our first aim must therefore be to reduce the amount of waste that each of us produces. That also means reducing the amount of waste that industry produces.
After reduction comes re-use; that is, putting objects back into re-use so that they do not need to be disposed of as waste. Re-using bottles is a common example. When waste is produced and cannot be re-used, it is vital to recover value from it wherever we can. We are all familiar with waste recovery options, such as composting. The disposal of waste is the least attractive option.
Together, these options are known as the waste hierarchy. Our overall objective is to increase the proportion of waste which is dealt with by the options towards the top of the hierarchy. Whatever option is used to deal with waste, we must ensure that it is done to high standards, and that any risks of pollution or harm to human health are minimised.
No one would deny that, at the moment, we produce too much waste, and do not recover enough value from it. We must strive to reduce the amount of waste we produce, to increase the amount of waste we re-use or recover, and to reduce the amount which has to be disposed of.
The landspreading of waste which is of benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement is a recovery option. Although the recovery of waste may be environmentally beneficial, it also has the potential to cause pollution of the environment and, in some cases, harm to human health. It is therefore essential that controls are in place to ensure that waste recovery operations are carried out in a way which protects the environment and human health.
The framework directive on waste—which my hon. Friend mentioned—provides the basis for these controls. The directive requires, among other things, that businesses which recover or dispose of waste have to be licensed. This is done through the waste management licensing system in force under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and related regulations. Under this licensing system, businesses carrying out waste disposal or recovery must have a waste management licence issued by the Environment Agency, must comply with the conditions of that licence, and must not cause environmental pollution or harm to human health.
The directive does allow member states discretion to provide exemptions from licensing. This discretion was used by the previous Government to provide a wide range of exemptions. These exemptions were provided with enthusiasm as part of the drive away from environmental controls and towards deregulation. That was too often the behaviour of the previous Government. One of the exemptions provided as part of this so-called deregulation exercise was to allow the landspreading of a long list of wastes. This list includes wastes such as blood and gut contents from abattoirs, and waste paper pulp.
Since the introduction of these exemptions in 1994, we have had the benefit of experience, and we have a new Government who are not obsessed with deregulation but are committed to protecting the environment and human health. Although the exemptions are subject to some conditions, experience suggests that past practice has not always been as rigorous as it might have been. In our view, it is necessary to strike a better balance between protecting the environment and human health, and encouraging the recovery of waste. We are not prepared to tolerate the abuse of exemptions as cheap disposal options—in other words, sham recovery. We need to provide the regulators with a better chance to act against those who are intent on abusing the system.
It is essential that waste is recovered or disposed of in ways that protect the environment and human health. For that reason, the controls on the landspreading of waste and the types of waste recovered in that way, must be based on sound science and the precautionary principle. With those objectives in sight, research into landspreading has been commissioned by my Department, the Environment Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The research project is developing criteria that will determine whether landspreading of particular wastes is likely to benefit agriculture or result in ecological improvement. It is looking at the types and quantities of wastes that are suitable for landspreading. We expect the research project to be completed by the end of next month, and have given a commitment to review the current exemptions from licensing for waste recovery by landspreading on completion of that research project. We will fulfil that commitment, and will take into account the


recommendations of the Environment Agency in doing so. With the agency, we will also publish good practice guidance reflecting the findings of the research.
Our proposals to revise the exemptions will be subject to a consultation exercise before being introduced. At this stage, I can give an indication of some of the issues I would like to see addressed in the review of the exemptions. For example, the present exemption conditions require that the person carrying out the landspreading pre-notifies the Environment Agency. However, there is no time limit on pre-notification. The agency must be given a better chance to act, to judge whether the landspreading is of benefit to agriculture, and to ensure that the environment and human health are protected.
The present exemption conditions do not make particular provision for landspreading in sensitive areas such as sites of special scientific interest or national parks. We need to consider what additional controls may be necessary in those areas. Clearly, biodiversity and habitat protection are important considerations in that respect.
The research project shows that about 1 million tonnes of paper sludge is being landspread each year, but I was surprised to find that the Environment Agency has no central records of when that is happening and where all that waste is going. That is because the previous Government did not want those records to be kept. We need to put that right.
We have made it clear that we expect the agency to be a fair but rigorous enforcer of environmental legislation, but, in order for it to fulfil that role, we must allow it to do its job. Protecting the environment and getting the regulatory balance right may mean the introduction of charges to allow the agency to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities.
Properly controlled landspreading of waste can contribute to sustainable development and bring environmental benefits. Where it is done properly, the landspreading of waste can improve the soil, be of benefit to agriculture and cut the amount of waste going to landfill. However, experience suggests that past practice has not been as rigorous as it might have been. It is necessary to strike a better balance between protecting the environment and human health, and encouraging the recovery of waste.
The controls on landspreading must be based on sound science and the precautionary principle. Research is under way to increase our knowledge of the science. We will review the landspreading controls on completion of the research project, and I have indicated some of the issues that I would like to be addressed. Clearly, my hon. Friend is invited to let us have her views once the consultation process has begun, as indeed are the representatives I met earlier from her constituency.
Our objective is to ensure that the landspreading of waste is of benefit to agriculture and is done in a way that protects the environment and human health, not compromises them. I want the controls to be rigorous, and I want to give the Environment Agency a better chance to act.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. Had she done so a couple of months from now, I might have been in a slightly better position to give her some sign of where the Government will go, but I hope that she will support the review and I look forward to seeing her responses to the consultation paper when it is issued.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Four o'clock.